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

[Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>]

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

[first part snipped with ACK]

>> 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...
>
> I think the comment in /etc/gs-gpl/Fontmap are to obvious for that:
>
> %!
> % See Fontmap.GS for the syntax of real Fontmap files
> (Fontmap.GS) .runlibfile
>
> So something like 'Why isn't Fontmap.GS a configfile?' 

That looks to me as if Fontmap.GS is a default setup file that is loaded
if nothing else is done in /etc/gs-gpl/Fontmap, but you can also remove
this call and instead configure all by hand, doesn't it?  So from a
policy point of view everything is okay.  Or not, since it seems that
there is no separate Fontmap for the other gs applications, but separate
Fontmap.GS files.  Don't the other packages have a configuration file?

No, they haven't - gs-gpl's  /usr/share/gs-gpl/8.01/lib/Fontmap is a
symlink to /etc/gs-gpl/Fontmap, but gs-esp's analogon is not.

> together with
> 'Why does Fontmap.GS contain fonts that are not supplied by gsfonts?'
> would be more appropriate. 

Indeed.  Also, it refers to a file "fonts.doc" which is not included in
the binary package.  Do you know whether earlier entries take
precedence, or later overwrite earlier ones?

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