Re: cm-super for Debian, problems with tetex

[Ralf Stubner <ralf.stubner@web.de>]

Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Sam, 27 Aug 2005, Ralf Stubner wrote:
>> >> > avantgar, bookman, helvetiv, etc are the URW fonts.
>> >> 
>> >> In that case the phrase 'Macro package for TeX (the most popular)' is a
>> >> bit missleading. :-) BTW, is it the fonts only (pfb, afm), or are these
>> >> the tfm/vf, too?
>> > 
>> > afm, tfm, vf, pfb, fd
>> 
>> Are these the tfm, vf, fd from PSNFSS? What's left in texlive-latex
>> then? Just a few sty files?
> 
> No. in psnfss.tpm there are the original -p- (t1phv etc etc) LaTeX
> support files, as distributed with psnfss.
> 
> In the respective helvetic etc packages there are the URW fonts, plus
> the -u- (t1uhv etc) files, plus vf etc.

Interesting. I have no idea where these metrics come from (teTeX doesn't
have them), but it sounds pk that way.

>> >> should at least Suggest/Recommend texlive-fontsrecomended. In addition,
>> > 
>> > Doesn't it?
> 
> Not necessary, I guess now.

I am not sure I understand what you trying to say. texlive-latex should
not Suggest/Recommend texlive-fontsrecomended? IMO this would be ok if
PS where still the norm. But more and more users produce PDF, where the
fonts are needed for PSNFSS. BTW, I think right now it is not possible
to have a pdftex.map without these fonts being referenced, since
00updmap.cfg from tex-common should be enough for this. Right?

>> >> garamond -- URW Garamond No8 Postscript Type 1 fonts.
>> > 
>> > tfm and vf, but this can be handled too with Replaces, or I can leave
>> > this out.
>> > 
>> > Generally as soon as we have a decent install mechanism for commercial
>> > fonts, I could leave out all these tfm/vf stuff for them from the
>> > texlive packages and tell the users to use the mk-fontpack stuff to
>> > generate a decent debian package.
>> 
>> For really commercial fonts, yes. But for 'free-beer fonts', having
>> readymade debian packages is interesting IMO. Also, IMHO metrics for
>> non-free fonts should only be in 'contrib', not in 'main'.
> 
> Two options for free fonts not included in TeX live (like URW Garamond No8)
> - the packages contains an `installer' which the user is either invited
>   to call or is called automatically, which installs the pfb parts into
>   the respective directories, otherwise leave it like is.

I don't think it is ok to have something like this in main. Things like
java-package have to be in contrib, since they download non-free stuff.

> - or leave out the garamond.tpm completely and try to get the font-packs
>   into Debian/non-free (is this possible?)

>From the legal point of view that would be now problem. AFPL is non-free
but distributable. Of course, a maintainer for the packages would be
needed. I for one haven't decided yet if I want to go into that
direction, but I wouldn't call it unlikely either. ;-) And I would need
a sponsor then. However, I wouldn't mind if somebody else wants to
maintain these packages.

BTW, Garamond No8 is a good example for the weakness of any automatic
installation mechanism: The normal font is called 'Regular', while the
(semi)bold font is called 'Medium'. Programs like mkfontscale or
defoma-hint treat this as being the same level of 'boldness', so human
intervention is needed.

> For completely commercial fonts there should not be any support files in
> the texlive debian packages.

ACK

cheerio
ralf