Re: cm-super for Debian, problems with tetex
Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> writes:
> Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
>
>> On Fre, 26 Aug 2005, Ralf Stubner wrote:
>>> > But it has ecrm.mf:
>>>
>>> Which is in tetex-extra. :-(
>>
>> Ahhh, that was the reason why it didn't work at first.
>
> The proper fix would probably be to move ecrm.mf to -base.
Definitely!
> Ralf, do you
> know which other sources should be moved along with it? Everyting in
> jnkappen/ec?
I would say everything from CTAN:fonts/jnkappen/ec. I think this can be
found in jnkappen/ec and jnkappen/tc (textcompanion fonts, ie, TS1
encoding).
> Is there someting like a "required" list for fonts?
Good question. One definitely needs CM (with additions from AMS, maybe
Euler, too), preferably also in Type1 format (bluesky + tt2001). EC and
TC fonts (CM in T1 and TS1 encoding) are also essential IMO. Since the
cyrillic bundle is also a required part of LaTeX, in principle CM in
T2[ABC] and OT2 encoding is also needed (eg, LH fonts), but I don't no
much about cyrillic fonts. PSNFSS calls in the URW fonts plus charter,
mathpazo and FPL. On the other hand, pxfonts, txfonts, and antt, which
are all in tetex-base, are not 'required' IMHO.
Note that this list is not comprehensive. A proper splitting of teTeX
needs quite a bit of thought. Norbert, what do you have in
texlive-basics?
One other font related thing: I promised some time ago to check whether
tetex-extra still needs to depend on gsfonts. I am meanwhile sure that
this is no longer necessary, since tetex-extra provides its own set of
these fonts. On the contrary, it would be interesting to configure gs
such that it use the fonts provided by teTeX. They might be an older
version, but are simply less troublesome, at least for the time being.
However, at the moment I don't understand how gs finds its fonts on
Debian in the first place. Things like the basicly empty 'Fontmap' being
a configuration files while the real 'Fontmap.GS' is not ...
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: