[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#302035: cm-super for Debian, problems with tetex



Ralf Stubner <ralf.stubner@physik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:

> 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 Largely superseded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

Thank you

> BaKoMa fonts mentioned in this thread are meanwhile free, but I am not sure.

It seems so, see

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00343.html

>> 
>> 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.

Very good.

>>> 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.

Yes, but it means that no user will complain if we move them, because
they are unusable with tetex-base only, anyway.

> 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. :-)

Well, I thought of a "I want to configure, but something goes wrong"
sort of bug where the maintainer first thinks you are a DAU and only
slowly figures out that their package might not be in ideal shape.  Had
a couple of these filed against tetex...

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer




Reply to: