Bug#302035: cm-super for Debian, problems with tetex
Frank Küster wrote:
> Ralf Stubner <Ralf.Stubner@physik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:
>>> 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).
>
> What is tt2001?
A collection of autotraced (tt=textrace) Type1 fonts. Largely superseded
by cm-super. teTeX uses the traced version of cmex[789], though, since
nobody else has converted these math fonts under a free license (bluesky
has cmex10 only). See TEXMF/fonts/type1/public/tt2001 and
<URL:http://groups.google.de/group/de.comp.text.tex/browse_thread/thread/c672d911126a55da/>
for what happens if one forgets to include these fonts. I think the
BaKoMa fonts mentioned in this thread are meanwhile free, but I am not sure.
>> 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.
>
> We could ask Walter Schmidt about this.
Good idea. It's probably best if I do this at our next 'TeX Stammtisch'
here in Erlangen.
>> 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.
>
> And antp - strangely the fd files are in tetex-extra, but the afm, tfm
> and pfb files are in -base. I hope we don't have more of similar
> inconsistencies.
fd files for antt are in tetex-extra, too. But that is not as bad as the
problem with the EC 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 ...
>
> Will you follow up on that, or should we just file a bug on gsfonts and
> wait whether anything happens?
I think I will first have a closer look at what gs it actualy doing. And
actually I am not sure what sort of bug one should file here. Or are you
speaking about Fontmap vs. Fontmap.GS only? In that case, I think it
would be gs-{gpl,esp,afpl} which should get the bug. At least tha is my
current understanding which is, of course, subject to change. :-)
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: