Re: lmodern package ready for teTeX 3 and upgrades from sarge
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 16:14 +0200, Florent Rougon wrote:
[...]
> I've also uploaded the previous version (0.92-8+tetex3+3), which is
> almost the same as 0.92-7+tetex3+3 (cosmetic fixes,
> s/VARTEXMF/TEXMFSYSVAR/g in comments...). The purpose of this version is
> (as what could already be found in this repository) to provide a sample
> font package that uses the "new updmap scheme" (the update-updmap we
> have in teTeX 3). 0.92-8+tetex3+4 is not as good for this purpose
> because handling the upgrade from teTeX 2 times makes the maintainer
> scripts more complex than needed for a package that is first uploaded in
> the teTeX 3 era[1]. Newly created packages don't need this complexity.
Thanks. Just recently I had taken the maintainer scripts from
0.92-7+tetex3+3 as example for those created by mk-tex-fontpack.
There is one thing I do not understand, though. You are arguing to call
just mktexlsr without any paricular directory as argument, since
updmap.cfg is not in $TEXMFMAIN. However, updmap.cfg shouldn't be a new
file and updmap should find it. All other files are installed in
$TEXMFMAIN. One could, of course, argue that typically $TEXMFMAIN is by
far the largest TEXMF tree, so the speed difference is negligible in
most cases and it is ok to be on the save side updating all ls-R files.
> Based on Ralf's comments, maybe it might be better to use mkfontscale,
> at least with respect to the declared charsets. I believe I didn't
> evaluate this tool when I added the X support to lmodern (maybe it
> wasn't available yet?). FYI, I generate my fonts.scale file with sed at
> build time from the defoma hints file, which I wrote manually (this is
> good to get families, weights, etc. right, but choosing which encoding
> to declare based on unknown rules is not very easy).
In your case, where you have complete control over the installed
fonts.scale file, it is probably best to use both mkfontscale and
type1inst to get an idea how it could look like, but do the final
version more or less by hand. From what I have seen up to now both these
tools (as well as defoma-hint in noninteractive mode) give results that
would profit from hand tuning. But most of the time they are at least
usable, so I keep them in mk-tex-fontpack.
> As usual, lintian complains about stuff in /usr/X11R6/lib, but I think
> it is wrong here: the stuff in question is only a bunch of symlinks, and
> it is the place recommended by Policy § 11.8.5.4.
ACK.
> If you test 0.92-8+tetex3+4, you will probably see at configure time:
>
> ,----
> | Running updmap-sys...
> | !!! WARNING: Identical copy of used file for `lm.map'
> | exists in obsolete location
> | /usr/share/texmf/dvips/config/lm.map
> | Please, consider removing this file.
[...]
> This cannot be solved in lmodern, AFAIK (without violating the new TDS).
> It is caused by the /usr/share/texmf/dvips/config symlink installed by
> tetex-base and I believe that I've already discussed about it with
> Frank, and that he left it there for compatibility reasons. However,
> users may be slightly upset by such a warning...
I don't understand this. According to TDS 1.1 map files are to be placed
in TEXMF/fonts/map. With Debian, the three subdirectories dvips, dvipdfm
and pdftex are actually links to /etc/texmf/map/{dvips,dvipdfm,pdftex}.
So if you install lm.map only as /etc/texmf/map/dvips/lm/lm.map, it
should be compliant with TDS 1.1 and updmap should not complain, since
only map files installed in /etc/texmf/dvips are found via the
/usr/share/texmf/dvips/config symlink. Or am I missing something? Is
this a specialty of version 0.92-8+tetex3+4 since it also cares about
the update from the version for teTeX 2?
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: