Bug#390349: Bug#388399: FTBFS problems on alpha, mips[el]: Please help debugging
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 21:13 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>
> I didn't check the mktexnam code - but I'm a little surprised here. I
> wasn't aware of the test for SYSTEXMF, but in case the test "fails",
> i.e. the input is from a private TEXMF tree, shouldn't the output go to
> TEXMFVAR ($HOME/.texmf-var), too? And isn't VARTEXFONTS the fallback in
> that case too, as it is if the input comes from a system tree?
I don't think it would be good, if ouput, which has been produced based
on a font in private TEXMF tree, ended up in the system wide font cache.
One possible problem are two users that have *differing* fonts but with
*equal* names in there private TEXMF trees. There are possibly other
reasons why mktexnam (line 138--185) distinguishs system trees from the
rest.
> Julian's idea that I mentioned previously is in line with what you
> describe in the first paragraph. If I remember right, it goes
> approximately like this:
[...]
Interesting. I am not sure, though, how important all this mktex* stuff
will be in the future. Right now if we shipped the metrics for the EC
fonts in teTeX (TeX Live does that IIRC) and told people to install
cm-super, most invocations of mktex* would no-longer be necessary.
> However, this requires some thorough thinking before implementing it,
> careful coding, and in any case it is something to introduce upstream.
Definitely.
> I repeat myself: I do not think that we do have any serious problem.
> The minor problems we have are much less severe in etch than they were
> in sarge, and I'd rather close this bug, or maybe set it to wishlist
> until Julian's idea gets implemented.
ACK
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: