From unknown Sat Jun 21 10:21:03 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#40558 <40558@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#40558 <40558@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts Reply-To: bug#40558 <40558@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 17:21:03 +0000 retitle 40558 Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate = fonts reassign 40558 guix submitter 40558 Jelle Licht severity 40558 normal thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 11 12:15:17 2020 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Apr 2020 16:15:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57015 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jNImr-0005VV-6u for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 12:15:17 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:32944) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jNImq-0005UH-4J for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 12:15:16 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49735) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jNImo-0008P7-OF for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 12:15:15 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jNImn-0005PY-C2 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 12:15:14 -0400 Received: from mail1.fsfe.org ([217.69.89.151]:43048) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jNImn-0005LQ-0W for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 11 Apr 2020 12:15:13 -0400 From: Jelle Licht To: bug-guix@gnu.org Subject: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 18:15:08 +0200 Message-ID: <874ktqxalv.fsf@jlicht.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 217.69.89.151 X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain I think I found a bug in our amsfonts texlive package. I will describe my journey in finding this bug, as I still do not have clear picture on the why/when/what is going on. I think I also saw several other people running into this issue the last few months, so either way I am happy to have found something reproducible that at least demonstrates that I am sane :). The eror message is: " ! Math formula deleted: Insufficient extension fonts." If you, like me, want to use Emacs' org-mode capabilities and export to pdf using latex, by default you will generate an intermediate .tex file that uses the ulem package. Using this package leads to the aforementioned error message. (Skip everything after this if you do not care about my descent into madness) I used a profile containing the following (relevant) texlive packages: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- texlive-base texlive-latex-preview texlive-latex-base texlive-latexconfig texlive-fonts-ec texlive-latex-oberdiek texlive-latex-wrapfig texlive-generic-ulem texlive-latex-capt-of texlive-latex-hyperref texlive-amsfonts texlive-fontinst texlive-metafont-base texlive-unicode-data texlive-pstool texlive-cm texlive-cm-super texlive-latex-amscls texlive-fonts-latex texlive-latex-amsmath --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- I ran both `strace pdflatex working 2> working-strace.log' and `strace pdflatex broken 2> broken-strace.log' See the attached `working.tex' and `broken.tex' for tiny examples that demonstrate this. The relevant part of the diff between straces: * Working: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- access("/home/jlicht/.guix-profile/share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/cmex7.tfm", R_OK) = 0 stat("/home/jlicht/.guix-profile/share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/cmex7.tfm", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0444, st_size=940, ...}) = 0 openat(AT_FDCWD, "/home/jlicht/.guix-profile/share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/cmex7.tfm", O_RDONLY) = 6 fstat(6, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0444, st_size=940, ...}) = 0 read(6, "\0\353\0\2\0\0\0\177\0#\0\6\0\16\0\3\0\0\0\0\0\34\0\r\27#\260\255\0p\0\0"..., 4096) = 940 close(6) = 0 openat(AT_FDCWD, "working.pdf", O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC, 0666) = 6 write(1, " [1", 3) = 3 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- * Broken: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- access("/home/jlicht/.guix-profile/share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/euler/cmex7.tfm", R_OK) = 0 stat("/home/jlicht/.guix-profile/share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/euler/cmex7.tfm", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0444, st_size=1312, ...}) = 0 openat(AT_FDCWD, "/home/jlicht/.guix-profile/share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/euler/cmex7.tfm", O_RDONLY) = 6 fstat(6, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0444, st_size=1312, ...}) = 0 read(6, "\1H\0\21\0\0\0\332\0*\0\20\0\20\0\6\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\6d\235jM\0\240\0\0"..., 4096) = 1312 close(6) = 0 write(1, "\n", 1) = 1 write(1, "! Math formula deleted: Insuffic"..., 54) = 54 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- We see that a different file is used when resolving the same font! Furthermore, one of these fonts is a totally different size than the other. If we run: `guix build --check texlive-amsfonts | grep cmex7', we see: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Font metrics written on /tmp/guix-build-texlive-amsfonts-49435.drv-0/source/build-fonts/cmex7.tfm. Output written on /tmp/guix-build-texlive-amsfonts-49435.drv-0/source/build-fonts/cmex7.600gf (128 characters, 30684 bytes). Transcript written on /tmp/guix-build-texlive-amsfonts-49435.drv-0/source/build-fonts/cmex7.log. converting afm font cmex7 cmex7 CMEX7 `build-fonts/cmex7.600gf' -> `/gnu/store/hrxlw7s1d8q0z5kipizjr7ib49bw4hjp-texlive-amsfonts-49435/share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/cmex7.600gf' `build-fonts/cmex7.tfm' -> `/gnu/store/hrxlw7s1d8q0z5kipizjr7ib49bw4hjp-texlive-amsfonts-49435/share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/cmex7.tfm' `build-fonts/euler/cmex7.tfm' -> `/gnu/store/hrxlw7s1d8q0z5kipizjr7ib49bw4hjp-texlive-amsfonts-49435/share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/amsfonts/euler/cmex7.tfm' --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- AFAIK, and from looking at the full (and correctly working) texlive-texmf build, the cmex7.tfm in `euler' is not correctly build. My best guess is that this happens because cmex has both a mf file and a afm file in `guix build --source texlive-amsfonts'. The one 'built' using afm2tfm seems to be broken and/or not matching other metadata generated, as given by this example. Thanks for reading along, I hope we will find a solution to this, as non-modular texlive is simply the worst :). --=-=-= Content-Type: application/x-tex Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=working.tex Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 XGRvY3VtZW50Y2xhc3NbMTFwdF17YXJ0aWNsZX0KXHVzZXBhY2thZ2V7YW1zbWF0aH0KXGJlZ2lu e2RvY3VtZW50fQpIZWxsbyEgXCh5ID0geF4yXCkKXGVuZHtkb2N1bWVudH0K --=-=-= Content-Type: application/x-tex Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=broken.tex Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 XGRvY3VtZW50Y2xhc3NbMTFwdF17YXJ0aWNsZX0KXHVzZXBhY2thZ2V7YW1zbWF0aH0KXHVzZXBh Y2thZ2V7dWxlbX0KXGJlZ2lue2RvY3VtZW50fQpIZWxsbyEgXCh5ID0geF4yXCkKXGVuZHtkb2N1 bWVudH0K --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain - Jelle --=-=-=-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Apr 20 15:31:38 2020 Received: (at 40558) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Apr 2020 19:31:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48433 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jQc8o-0004I6-1h for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:31:38 -0400 Received: from mail1.fsfe.org ([217.69.89.151]:48002) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jQc8j-0004Hr-5R for 40558@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2020 15:31:35 -0400 From: Jelle Licht To: 40558@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#40558: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts In-Reply-To: <874ktqxalv.fsf@jlicht.xyz> References: <874ktqxalv.fsf@jlicht.xyz> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 21:31:30 +0200 Message-ID: <87h7xenect.fsf@jlicht.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40558 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -6.0 (------) Jelle Licht writes: > The eror message is: > " ! Math formula deleted: Insufficient extension fonts." [snip] > AFAIK, and from looking at the full (and correctly working) > texlive-texmf build, the cmex7.tfm in `euler' is not correctly build. > My best guess is that this happens because cmex has both a mf file and a > afm file in `guix build --source texlive-amsfonts'. The one 'built' > using afm2tfm seems to be broken and/or not matching other metadata > generated, as given by this example. I have found a workaround for my immediate problem, but I'm not nearly enough of a tex guru to foresee any issues my changes might cause. After some trial and error that took longer than I'm willing to admit, I have the following snippet: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- diff --git a/gnu/packages/tex.scm b/gnu/packages/tex.scm index cd461314b5..363c7a318c 100644 --- a/gnu/packages/tex.scm +++ b/gnu/packages/tex.scm @@ -1108,7 +1108,7 @@ Taco Hoekwater.") ;; convert the afm files instead. (let ((build (string-append (getcwd) "/build-fonts/euler"))) (mkdir build) - (with-directory-excursion "fonts/afm/public/amsfonts/" + (with-directory-excursion "fonts/afm/public/amsfonts/euler" (for-each (lambda (font) (format #t "converting afm font ~a\n" (basename font ".afm")) (invoke "afm2tfm" font --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- With this patch applied, I can make use of the modular texlive system from the comfort of Emacs + org. It could be that there are other 'ghost fonts' haunting up the place. The following... --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- guix refresh -l texlive-amsfonts Building the following 1438 packages would ensure 3202 dependent packages are rebuilt --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- makes me think this is very much a disruptive change. I'm not in a hurry to get this upstreamed, but if anyone could reproduce the problem (and my fix...), I would be more confident in pushing it. - Jelle From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat May 09 06:48:12 2020 Received: (at 40558) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 May 2020 10:48:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46831 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jXN1g-0005TR-Ho for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 06:48:12 -0400 Received: from m42-5.mailgun.net ([69.72.42.5]:60452) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jXN1b-0005T7-Ky for 40558@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 09 May 2020 06:48:11 -0400 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.wilsonb.com; q=dns/txt; s=krs; t=1589021290; h=Content-Type: MIME-Version: Message-Id: From: To: Date: Sender; bh=/J3ttExroroRTL5txmpCxfy9UaU/YF2tXcuv+c1cC44=; b=vwE/Pgvx/JkHpdvhJrmY0vKTNSWcpEmYa37XTDl6Ij7jgO3CbrePtivgFm7MC9IzeVk8V0O9 jfzecW0mNBH/HcJG2U0x2BTIVHxiL3F7ZWqKMT7eYwAaxSaWI+kI/tu3sJPhDIgSzLRGlSH/ z2cMFrjCisPAXUR3DEMuXkBRQPFi6Ba54PoVv/X8t1ITxcIaNCIVMNEuD4YQL4JUJgX/lYBr jtsFjqJYbNxyMksIiA2+cqYescz+2u1g1jTb+zVQPLzZ8Ec2YYACoxMD8WDpUM3bSVSH4vYY 6d8hX6x3+YnhF2HDoDAnsqjKm9KrSqO6wHy+k9BhsG4BnGjiBCrU3w== X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.42.5 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyJkYzdiZCIsICI0MDU1OEBkZWJidWdzLmdudS5vcmciLCAiMDg1NDdhIl0= Received: from wilsonb.com (wilsonb.com [104.199.203.42]) by mxa.mailgun.org with ESMTP id 5eb68a5c.7f19b588e480-smtp-out-n02; Sat, 09 May 2020 10:47:56 -0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (KD111239200103.au-net.ne.jp [111.239.200.103]) by wilsonb.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F373A1A75 for <40558@debbugs.gnu.org>; Sat, 9 May 2020 10:47:52 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wilsonb.com; s=201703; t=1589021273; bh=/J3ttExroroRTL5txmpCxfy9UaU/YF2tXcuv+c1cC44=; h=Date:To:From:From; b=GvBmUuXERpQpubBCDWys5XzPNnmHDAcqNk17qnXPhKqO42lKr57lI9BMtVR3rjElV SbmkwTPbnI6JA9XNJWd3G6dYIR2WB9uULD+DCTdUmVc7PV12yOZup4RuNjJAqPdqAJ sBWqd5nCRIu0W9EpwPiFKaMkkkFJyneQpCTedFMEV7gvmyMx1ullYE5vrotwvxMWTg j6Ta3rUk7jI2HE9Zx2Yu9WzjjlzPWlQGeKt9JfKkgp/uowENmih45o6amIA5OUtw/Z Bt1NNc/5eLfJ3SiX9NWJmXePSvK9De14Dlw7jsIQ5RenhEwYnh5le/fA6lvpBNBwFp Gz1MvRWcCDRXPZjkNYFiPNqIkLt9fbKIG4566p2bUCDa7LhI22g00wZgItSoZkJC3v JYQzuL6cOOQ2Jp2QWPn9IHJn0KaMWiQf+Shj17VEX3dzVXpDx74y7RQyV1XNDbdjVz pleXniz/cKNzFIiOvaJ4rJYNG2j4msEDALymiYql0AJI1mUhYjkuwOl7GyXdxP01m2 oMdzN1UaPihBKSkZCIvWmVmqDTZLY1ja6ennVVagmGIBzlG+L58lMQCDvFaqZunQeX mQ5l6BR972/ddbtJWrYs1HDLemfvLLan9d9nX4uIdUNoopRJWS05eWFLELNYS5Wowp dvVTeN7n2lfmOg605ZhIz0tg= Date: Sat, 09 May 2020 19:47:48 +0900 To: 40558@debbugs.gnu.org From: elaexuotee@wilsonb.com Message-Id: <27M6ZG86RAW9I.2JWF3V3MICGED@wilsonb.com> User-Agent: mblaze/0.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----_=_7679f21315166a4d5eb3800f_=_" X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: I encountered a similar issue while trying to package something with a texlive-union input. Tracking down the issue has killed way too many hours. FWIW, the `working.tex' minimal example is also giving me similar problems: Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: gnu.org] -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [69.72.42.5 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [69.72.42.5 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.8 MISSING_SUBJECT Missing Subject: header 0.2 NO_SUBJECT Extra score for no subject 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40558 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------_=_7679f21315166a4d5eb3800f_=_ MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_468d5bec01c7be3850578313_=_" This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------_=_468d5bec01c7be3850578313_=_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I encountered a similar issue while trying to package something with a texl= ive-union input. Tracking down the issue has killed way too many hours. FWIW, the `working.tex' minimal example is also giving me similar problems:= $ guix describe Generation 28 5=E6=9C=88 07 2020 01:10:02 (current) guix bed695a repository URL: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git branch: master commit: bed695aa94cd85800ec2c6296fb2d13e7ac29133 $ guix environment --pure -e '((@ (gnu packages tex) texlive-union) `(,= (@ (gnu packages tex) texlive-amsfonts)))' $ pdflatex working ... ! Math formula deleted: Insufficient symbol fonts. \) ->\relax \ifmmode \ifinner $ \else \@badmath \fi \else \@badmath \fi= l.4 Hello! \(y =3D x^2\) ... With the patch to texlive-amsfonts the above typesets just fine; however, m= etafont ends up generating cmmi10.657pk and cmr10.657pk font files. Is this= expected? Typsetting it from the texlive installation of my foreign distro= doesn't call out to metafont at all. ------_=_468d5bec01c7be3850578313_=_-- ------_=_7679f21315166a4d5eb3800f_=_ Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iI0EABYIADUWIQQ7FdZn/PDWvxE6cmR2pStZ7i7CgQUCXraKTRccZWxhZXh1b3Rl ZUB3aWxzb25iLmNvbQAKCRB2pStZ7i7CgSK8AQDZh9C4jVB9AhH4uBCVjSTPYAjL Vs9zE7z5ttwbr2M0LgEA9fTBLAXPMDxYAj/83y/e+/jFuJL/v3txs64+77kQdgk= =1v6d -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------_=_7679f21315166a4d5eb3800f_=_-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue May 12 08:37:00 2020 Received: (at 40558) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 May 2020 12:37:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54485 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jYU9c-0004Wa-4O for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 08:37:00 -0400 Received: from mail1.fsfe.org ([217.69.89.151]:41962) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jYU9b-0004WS-6x for 40558@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 08:36:59 -0400 From: Jelle Licht To: elaexuotee@wilsonb.com, 40558@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#40558: (no subject) In-Reply-To: <27M6ZG86RAW9I.2JWF3V3MICGED@wilsonb.com> References: <874ktqxalv.fsf@jlicht.xyz> <27M6ZG86RAW9I.2JWF3V3MICGED@wilsonb.com> Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 14:36:55 +0200 Message-ID: <87zhade3dk.fsf@jlicht.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40558 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) elaexuotee@wilsonb.com writes: > With the patch to texlive-amsfonts the above typesets just fine; however, metafont ends up generating cmmi10.657pk and cmr10.657pk font files. Is this expected? Typsetting it from the texlive installation of my foreign distro doesn't call out to metafont at all. As I mentioned earlier, I am not a tex expert at all. I have no clue, but if my patch makes spooky things happen, we should probably hold off on applying it. - Jelle From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Oct 26 18:08:24 2020 Received: (at 40558) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Oct 2020 22:08:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41817 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kXAfA-0007wU-HC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 18:08:24 -0400 Received: from sender4-of-o51.zoho.com ([136.143.188.51]:21195) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kXAf7-0007wG-RX for 40558@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 18:08:22 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1603750099; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=Omhp2uG0UQT4Pswd7S0w/hCueQnydqMXfwMVDatQ+YFWbHuj5FCMb15JFJ5BltevpYs73RL9AnMoOLMLve0QQoAq+Au9DNmr+00GpEjUK2TvmqDW9qbq0gV/NeAxKcX0xwNjO9N3xKqri9H0TIZCiOuIzctMaYxYwAY6FHnH/XA= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1603750099; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=7/+G5JZML9t9XjPQ9no4jp1OIv+wiPj55Vjok+0d+ZI=; b=goFS2LL8VVGpKh6t8geek3xH2uHd9TsKWwsZCz4hRG3m2kuORx+3MQIQczweHVfD30dTRKVCEMjvPUX/2VpOGqywdkrKoCxmb4pLkN1EkP/9Mq2GkNU9daxKEreWAhn/IxMILoagY0JFpy3T7tHYZ/NNavn9SsgylULOQKUF5io= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=elephly.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rekado@elephly.net; dmarc=pass header.from= header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1603750099; s=zoho; d=elephly.net; i=rekado@elephly.net; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-reply-to:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=7/+G5JZML9t9XjPQ9no4jp1OIv+wiPj55Vjok+0d+ZI=; b=XoIwou+o9QCR4oG7ipgKeNNixZFNFdMR6v9+mJbmVUTKI+4yNQeDgE/dsTgBqgav P+vPJUCPnSTaZ9JzviOgfQ9wbR+9XnCRnEmXu1dgwwANmAy93OLGZA189jDpRw7dMZX s+p4t+ma8wgrUwKohIL/iXUW43defkCc2OKvmdSY= Received: from localhost (p54ad4c4a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.173.76.74]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1603750095669107.58785442043177; Mon, 26 Oct 2020 15:08:15 -0700 (PDT) References: <874ktqxalv.fsf@jlicht.xyz> <27M6ZG86RAW9I.2JWF3V3MICGED@wilsonb.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.13; emacs 27.1 From: Ricardo Wurmus To: elaexuotee@wilsonb.com Subject: Re: bug#40558: (no subject) In-reply-to: <27M6ZG86RAW9I.2JWF3V3MICGED@wilsonb.com> X-URL: https://elephly.net X-PGP-Key: https://elephly.net/rekado.pubkey X-PGP-Fingerprint: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 23:10:04 +0100 Message-ID: <8736203agz.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: elaexuotee@wilsonb.com writes: > With the patch to texlive-amsfonts the above typesets just fine; > however, metafont ends up generating cmmi10.657pk and cmr10.657pk font > files. Is this expected? Typsetting it from the texlive in [...] Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 2.0 SLIGHTLY_BAD_SUBJECT Subject contains something slightly spammy -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [136.143.188.51 listed in list.dnswl.org] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [136.143.188.51 listed in wl.mailspike.net] X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40558 Cc: 40558@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) elaexuotee@wilsonb.com writes: > With the patch to texlive-amsfonts the above typesets just fine; > however, metafont ends up generating cmmi10.657pk and cmr10.657pk font > files. Is this expected? Typsetting it from the texlive installation > of my foreign distro doesn't call out to metafont at all. This is a problem with the modular TeX Live packages. The pk files are bitmap fonts. I found that adding texlive-cm-super to the union helps in that the bitmap variants of the CM fonts will not be generated any more. More font packages may be needed in the union to prevent TeX from falling back to bitmap fonts in other cases. In any case, that=E2=80=99s unrelated to Jelle=E2=80=99s patch, which looks= fine to me. --=20 Ricardo From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 03 04:57:16 2021 Received: (at 40558) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Feb 2021 09:57:16 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36850 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l7EuS-0005rM-3w for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 04:57:16 -0500 Received: from m42-5.mailgun.net ([69.72.42.5]:58489) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l7EuN-0005r2-63 for 40558@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 04:57:14 -0500 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.wilsonb.com; q=dns/txt; s=krs; t=1612346233; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type: MIME-Version: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: From: Subject: Cc: To: Date: Sender; bh=BKbcFaFFD5H6tqKbbw3FPI/LlZ4NLtfFV+EAU6LJmXU=; b=qGGGSq6yOwtpOPNc3omhGzyKn/J3nM+br8F0nx8lmK1HjqdnUcurCeIL1zQaHA0f8CdW+ON5 5g1eJaayaxJM2rTuEtYfd4ykzWgOAJ2x6A85589TZ52yKTmOoS+k0d+lVtZw4cGT7rZcAlj0 OnwMD/5u+TBGM5mGBjEKArzdbqB58D4FNwTaH9mUGskHqMfARTN+pp/7pmZFHNGtn0e6RPlo 5nii8/SxWx3PiFBLTCHfdlmtwLvvlAS0a88T+n0N7VkLGP+hJchX4go00DvEwJc7lRNyONrA bCnbVN2ECRTHzoGCL2tjy/KFH/3SZDAD78eFUIrD3J25H9QrQAxSrw== X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.42.5 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyJkYzdiZCIsICI0MDU1OEBkZWJidWdzLmdudS5vcmciLCAiMDg1NDdhIl0= Received: from wilsonb.com (wilsonb.com [104.199.203.42]) by smtp-out-n07.prod.us-west-2.postgun.com with SMTP id 601a7369ca5a3268de6ab6de (version=TLS1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Wed, 03 Feb 2021 09:56:57 GMT Received: from localhost (x099243.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [122.249.99.243]) by wilsonb.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 11CCAA1890; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 09:56:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wilsonb.com; s=201703; t=1612346215; bh=BKbcFaFFD5H6tqKbbw3FPI/LlZ4NLtfFV+EAU6LJmXU=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:From:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=CePVR5w46rXynkrB5d+Rj922yJyddZIll/tkvesqcHYSjESRNEd3AMQLE5/6qsDSS 3+Brz54zS3wgtFWlLHq/bIJFJWw7pi8hV1P4bdMq5T0R8xj5oZMQY2DYnHbRjvUSjO chzXWSH4TVfxMTFakzyvUDPDe78WM1oKrC90n8lnapKIPVuFBavtGg/2+S+sWybEtu lio3o92qpjWNeKyQOWkNnlvOrQO/D+PAUZ84Pq8jjOxm3M4ET310bOmk0CPn44vTip RmL8QxfkTPb5PrFkb/vatJLgsvMCYHtzSHYCRb8jwQZScyRezuXdMSbsDOfvYYOISI Iz48ioWeDiO11CfofM61Dk1kr2ak61bqmL9XU7qNI20ffqI5z1eBpX9g/If3H1iTQs Li7EzfYlcl61RXbN/VAyCGZqYsJ1sA6FybT+5W2HOw+6h6pdRtxnCQB0T5cw+7GMp7 n9lqKYzYpEobKTkYyixcqE9nAy4mZ5YSrXqL3kAb7Ete+LfgAgNcTWEBGF6DmGv+RA bkLGWW9xG1qhzDHRq8e4mW66tHwY8tOnDb3R3lr1xJRyP1sdwXWLCzc9O1xwKpZLo0 iN6LqF1EyfBU/oAIQXKiUV4tcXUOM+d9khtSzRuph45NhstmrKTrpgPpg+0itgyue7 heFb7OLFAK3Olb/Zt/6veVpI= Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 18:57:09 +0900 To: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: bug#40558: (no subject) From: elaexuotee@wilsonb.com References: <874ktqxalv.fsf@jlicht.xyz> <27M6ZG86RAW9I.2JWF3V3MICGED@wilsonb.com> <8736203agz.fsf@elephly.net> In-Reply-To: <8736203agz.fsf@elephly.net> Message-Id: <2O0C65TN1X0RC.2X8CEIYC1SBBG@wilsonb.com> User-Agent: mblaze/1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > This is a problem with the modular TeX Live packages. The pk files are > bitmap fonts. I found that adding texlive-cm-super to the union helps > in that th [...] Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 2.0 SLIGHTLY_BAD_SUBJECT Subject contains something slightly spammy -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [69.72.42.5 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [69.72.42.5 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40558 Cc: 40558@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > This is a problem with the modular TeX Live packages. The pk files are > bitmap fonts. I found that adding texlive-cm-super to the union helps > in that the bitmap variants of the CM fonts will not be generated any > more. More font packages may be needed in the union to prevent TeX from > falling back to bitmap fonts in other cases. >=20 > In any case, that=E2=80=99s unrelated to Jelle=E2=80=99s patch, which loo= ks fine to me. Thank you, Ricardo, for looking into this. I have lost signficant amounts of hair trying to find a solution. Adding texlive-cm-super doesn't help for the document I trying to typeset. In fact= , I even grabbed all texlive packages with fonts and threw them in the texlive-union to no effect. No matter what, pdflatex bails when trying to f= ind the font to set $~$. The only way I have gotten it to typeset under a texlive-union so far is by= munging texlive-amsfonts as Jelle mentioned. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jan 21 12:22:33 2022 Received: (at 40558) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Jan 2022 17:22:33 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34997 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nAxcP-0004N9-1H for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 12:22:33 -0500 Received: from sender4-of-o51.zoho.com ([136.143.188.51]:21136) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nAxcM-0004N1-VD for 40558@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 12:22:32 -0500 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1642785748; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=VcAXzFaSWyK8M4TNHs17JrkBgTMBiwHtZ6mTMjsLppvtZs62fMhRn2JvXzTY5+tQr27ajlbj8AKkb92Yp3it9HUTrr1PkZVZVFOevqEaJ6xiRq5dszqTyX7qJi9nQZpB+4z3s2t5n5ABC9MZyIgw7THYAs0kkRl6YRbmDj6Orsg= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1642785748; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=BJjLm52HM37B4WX2GMHSSt2Y26CEUTYRcJ62hlQOObw=; b=eEDG810D2oWQ8hojzHqu/sFjo8z7q35WkQ056uU+vt+MYlGVfxFpP3y7qV9xQ6Wtu/KE1Kq/xIDjcpEy8PFtShAZFjvrEQP0Lrhr2M1ZgkKC2cN/vkaVR9ptOyDMUo6bphgcMNfFEGXpIH228mnSCi3gafbN3Sr8TQ4w+PevhoQ= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=elephly.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rekado@elephly.net; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1642785748; s=zoho; d=elephly.net; i=rekado@elephly.net; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-reply-to:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=BJjLm52HM37B4WX2GMHSSt2Y26CEUTYRcJ62hlQOObw=; b=ALqxKaPRPNq3yW9GQLOyVJvX8yu2hufMJsnLq/saHDBGcOt9Vc4xTF4VYX+Bqx4z +LCLrGkRWmGw8w8/dBnVRGGdhX+b6A9Da7DGtahho5cdCAmD0n2jGptrC5WDhwAAH3k bU3D6M2eRwnnjwFvwUSs8nzDl5gShDT+O+X8UgK4= Received: from localhost (p54ad4dca.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.173.77.202]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1642785746324516.5505239626732; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 09:22:26 -0800 (PST) References: <874ktqxalv.fsf@jlicht.xyz> <27M6ZG86RAW9I.2JWF3V3MICGED@wilsonb.com> <8736203agz.fsf@elephly.net> <2O0C65TN1X0RC.2X8CEIYC1SBBG@wilsonb.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 27.2 From: Ricardo Wurmus To: elaexuotee@wilsonb.com Subject: Re: bug#40558: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 18:21:11 +0100 In-reply-to: <2O0C65TN1X0RC.2X8CEIYC1SBBG@wilsonb.com> X-URL: https://elephly.net X-PGP-Key: https://elephly.net/rekado.pubkey X-PGP-Fingerprint: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC Message-ID: <87sfthovg2.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40558 Cc: 40558@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) elaexuotee@wilsonb.com writes: > Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >> This is a problem with the modular TeX Live packages. The pk files are >> bitmap fonts. I found that adding texlive-cm-super to the union helps >> in that the bitmap variants of the CM fonts will not be generated any >> more. More font packages may be needed in the union to prevent TeX from >> falling back to bitmap fonts in other cases. >>=20 >> In any case, that=E2=80=99s unrelated to Jelle=E2=80=99s patch, which lo= oks fine to me. > > Thank you, Ricardo, for looking into this. > > I have lost signficant amounts of hair trying to find a solution. Adding > texlive-cm-super doesn't help for the document I trying to typeset. In fa= ct, I > even grabbed all texlive packages with fonts and threw them in the > texlive-union to no effect. No matter what, pdflatex bails when trying to= find > the font to set $~$. > > The only way I have gotten it to typeset under a texlive-union so far is = by > munging texlive-amsfonts as Jelle mentioned. I have since added texlive-amsfonts/fixed, which installs all the files it is supposed to (according do the tlpdb). I=E2=80=99ve also since fixed = font search. Can this issue be closed? --=20 Ricardo From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Jan 21 18:42:46 2022 Received: (at 40558) by debbugs.gnu.org; 21 Jan 2022 23:42:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35337 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nB3YM-0002Xp-9Z for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 18:42:46 -0500 Received: from m42-5.mailgun.net ([69.72.42.5]:45823) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nB3YH-0002XU-1k for 40558@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 18:42:44 -0500 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.wilsonb.com; q=dns/txt; s=krs; t=1642808561; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type: MIME-Version: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: From: Subject: Cc: To: Date: Sender; bh=QjvzMQ7q6YoQmqN9yh+Ds/0E6F8hUTQZjFXOQ5OVfYA=; b=H/94jDeSyZ4PJwtxASfNsOFBCYNBF0qwI+vucf48U3voHyNoJOXGCCvHMsy8HgdXb71ADUqS Re5dVcGjXtnt8kEKmnijdeAbVGClhD8GQ0CudpZYXDkZJ7qTUdUjyVuG8y69vKCb9HcrOul6 Dq/3FHa4y91ekNGVz6lnE1Iz7Rus0rNE1dcefZuB2A7uWi3oHtf+lbyI7ZGJ+F1wsgg0qmXY aFFSRT8KG/sJqm2FEoHzbOCcSC2DRqBlvy2GV9QBVQ4PjfFA3AjaARSVleirCUm/wczsQQoE ufTsF8grutTG9txljyGxsoFt4QBIuAiZ3oXihNuawFicn0nfkXrSIQ== X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.42.5 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyJkYzdiZCIsICI0MDU1OEBkZWJidWdzLmdudS5vcmciLCAiMDg1NDdhIl0= Received: from wilsonb.com (wilsonb.com [104.199.203.42]) by smtp-out-n03.prod.us-east-1.postgun.com with SMTP id 61eb44eb6189a19cb217cbde (version=TLS1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Fri, 21 Jan 2022 23:42:35 GMT Received: from localhost (q045100.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [203.181.45.100]) by wilsonb.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36630A2E54; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 23:42:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wilsonb.com; s=201703; t=1642808550; bh=QjvzMQ7q6YoQmqN9yh+Ds/0E6F8hUTQZjFXOQ5OVfYA=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:From:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=WqZOKjNKdjv/vVLUSo6U8nQyunCzmS7EeUx5YOPqoqyNCM++irkpQILwqdIejXjKd CU8N0ZxUio3t/07N1EcfuR3UbEP52GUuuJIi1y762utyOaPrBwmYJOrxghDobqqaGU lF+DJPX4E6Xq32hqaz+w4Ic1+C9t7abXPsNlsnAeACBxyBpZYoqs40YtWR3BcXAqg4 U5v9eOCsOHEvngBHNdY57ZuScOMapfihChbQV3FZpOJBBW+fHHEW6zxQBPzhshb1KE 5ikLDAc0qaUc0vnQTomcTVwJoRgVnbSc5bPGkZWKF8UtVi5FOW3zzr1t8mffBN8W25 l2cdHg2veIU/9Tq+6Gfd9X9CzcB05GitDtuEG+N9eGldUtBCXcLhSTa6Wl1AI7NtId OmaF+xNGMP9vrtPUGhKVqd3ln7mwGuM7tNGl3ANiEfNrWELqI2B8ynVSYIrGF4wism E+Uqn/54pDtoGV8o9idOepPIkT2lqlbf6FZqZqwAmCBlb9bpaTP9XG8M3AHzYB4b1W wuiFbmSMb+4lE+5us1CemKtYAiKZiAh8TKR/qNipwsuwfRK8r5xKeVSweKVW/8MNNd 84bR9/Mhjpl8qR3ba6gOov0bWXrV8cYk23ASsnqOY4ZZJWAiuAlh/q2EKAUzkB+GyU xBPu6f1haAUmA/WVOYP17+F8= Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2022 08:42:27 +0900 To: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: bug#40558: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts From: elaexuotee@wilsonb.com References: <874ktqxalv.fsf@jlicht.xyz> <27M6ZG86RAW9I.2JWF3V3MICGED@wilsonb.com> <8736203agz.fsf@elephly.net> <2O0C65TN1X0RC.2X8CEIYC1SBBG@wilsonb.com> <87sfthovg2.fsf@elephly.net> In-Reply-To: <87sfthovg2.fsf@elephly.net> Message-Id: <321HNQCQ83DRR.3A7ZBRV3CBQ8S@wilsonb.com> User-Agent: mblaze/1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40558 Cc: 40558@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >=20 > elaexuotee@wilsonb.com writes: >=20 > > Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > >> This is a problem with the modular TeX Live packages. The pk files ar= e > >> bitmap fonts. I found that adding texlive-cm-super to the union helps= > >> in that the bitmap variants of the CM fonts will not be generated any > >> more. More font packages may be needed in the union to prevent TeX fr= om > >> falling back to bitmap fonts in other cases. > >>=20 > >> In any case, that=E2=80=99s unrelated to Jelle=E2=80=99s patch, which = looks fine to me. > > > > Thank you, Ricardo, for looking into this. > > > > I have lost signficant amounts of hair trying to find a solution. Addin= g > > texlive-cm-super doesn't help for the document I trying to typeset. In = fact, I > > even grabbed all texlive packages with fonts and threw them in the > > texlive-union to no effect. No matter what, pdflatex bails when trying = to find > > the font to set $~$. > > > > The only way I have gotten it to typeset under a texlive-union so far i= s by > > munging texlive-amsfonts as Jelle mentioned. >=20 > I have since added texlive-amsfonts/fixed, which installs all the files > it is supposed to (according do the tlpdb). I=E2=80=99ve also since fixe= d font > search. >=20 > Can this issue be closed? Are we sure this is fixed? The issue where you added texlive-amsfonts/fixed= is still seeing the original missing fonts error for eufm10: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53339#3-lineno36 From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jan 22 02:51:18 2022 Received: (at 40558) by debbugs.gnu.org; 22 Jan 2022 07:51:18 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35666 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nBBB8-00018u-BG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Jan 2022 02:51:18 -0500 Received: from sender4-of-o51.zoho.com ([136.143.188.51]:21190) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nBBB5-00018k-1b for 40558@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Jan 2022 02:51:17 -0500 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1642837872; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=EBnt41cgOIlhgviePRhCmrlKfcp0x8KLDhRw7WKQcwOaVTQE7vOeX3PPq+zQcBPex44c6K60dlwQ1mDR+BvPEwgQMRK0irtOXejL23GpNXKMC73kaSNVFmT/VIkcdzFrV/g+4nv1XbnFSrgzEQVC/nGvl0tavtpFfNf30cQvua8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1642837872; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=z3Sbk93rprdy8I4RFfPoDaxsZX/iJVXTNrjPTEgS8sY=; b=HDq/BlftFxBxdQkdIBKArEJLS2VTTXMv71KL0/LUyHvCAI2gfqYJ+X1ifM/KwR+KXP/OWRL47wAUC55buA0Snkx9SCbcDm84BMFZVkOVkERTJzDiElt8v6mVXUkfpzYQBTNmmm//e8XrW0ZQ+CD02i4V8XBvE9fOjpk+yEywLRY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=elephly.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rekado@elephly.net; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1642837872; s=zoho; d=elephly.net; i=rekado@elephly.net; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-reply-to:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=z3Sbk93rprdy8I4RFfPoDaxsZX/iJVXTNrjPTEgS8sY=; b=dN5m5GEnBRhgg8BBGCKokqm8OCQoS+/5k53j4hBV6hfRas4ANhijAzqhCygKshvk eMt+OqdlHqG63wgueOE8FkS1kgfajFTEY9rrd0JQIVTJWCEny+01b9TdNs0+aihjZ+0 +bUuQHhUkK7WR+kaKZfo5qxi9Gjdd4+72w7/GkV8= Received: from localhost (p4fd5a63e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.213.166.62]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1642837871131990.9941382125381; Fri, 21 Jan 2022 23:51:11 -0800 (PST) References: <874ktqxalv.fsf@jlicht.xyz> <27M6ZG86RAW9I.2JWF3V3MICGED@wilsonb.com> <8736203agz.fsf@elephly.net> <2O0C65TN1X0RC.2X8CEIYC1SBBG@wilsonb.com> <87sfthovg2.fsf@elephly.net> <321HNQCQ83DRR.3A7ZBRV3CBQ8S@wilsonb.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 27.2 From: Ricardo Wurmus To: elaexuotee@wilsonb.com Subject: Re: bug#40558: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2022 08:50:17 +0100 In-reply-to: <321HNQCQ83DRR.3A7ZBRV3CBQ8S@wilsonb.com> X-URL: https://elephly.net X-PGP-Key: https://elephly.net/rekado.pubkey X-PGP-Fingerprint: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC Message-ID: <87o844p5sj.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40558 Cc: 40558@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) elaexuotee@wilsonb.com writes: > Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >>=20 >> elaexuotee@wilsonb.com writes: >>=20 >> > Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >> >> This is a problem with the modular TeX Live packages. The pk files a= re >> >> bitmap fonts. I found that adding texlive-cm-super to the union helps >> >> in that the bitmap variants of the CM fonts will not be generated any >> >> more. More font packages may be needed in the union to prevent TeX f= rom >> >> falling back to bitmap fonts in other cases. >> >>=20 >> >> In any case, that=E2=80=99s unrelated to Jelle=E2=80=99s patch, which= looks fine to me. >> > >> > Thank you, Ricardo, for looking into this. >> > >> > I have lost signficant amounts of hair trying to find a solution. Addi= ng >> > texlive-cm-super doesn't help for the document I trying to typeset. In= fact, I >> > even grabbed all texlive packages with fonts and threw them in the >> > texlive-union to no effect. No matter what, pdflatex bails when trying= to find >> > the font to set $~$. >> > >> > The only way I have gotten it to typeset under a texlive-union so far = is by >> > munging texlive-amsfonts as Jelle mentioned. >>=20 >> I have since added texlive-amsfonts/fixed, which installs all the files >> it is supposed to (according do the tlpdb). I=E2=80=99ve also since fix= ed font >> search. >>=20 >> Can this issue be closed? > > Are we sure this is fixed? The issue where you added texlive-amsfonts/fix= ed is > still seeing the original missing fonts error for eufm10: > > https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53339#3-lineno36 At least the question =E2=80=9Cis texlive-amsfonts broken=E2=80=9D is defin= itively answered. This was what this issue was about, no? I=E2=80=99d rather keep= the other issue separate. --=20 Ricardo From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Jan 22 21:53:46 2022 Received: (at 40558) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jan 2022 02:53:46 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38320 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nBT0k-000733-Hj for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Jan 2022 21:53:46 -0500 Received: from m42-5.mailgun.net ([69.72.42.5]:21523) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nBT0h-00072o-Oy for 40558@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 22 Jan 2022 21:53:45 -0500 DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.wilsonb.com; q=dns/txt; s=krs; t=1642906423; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type: MIME-Version: Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: From: Subject: Cc: To: Date: Sender; bh=JDaoEm7HOFq7AStiSXCrNE/HtQDWOH6W4TgICqxoRIk=; b=0S/Stq3H5xoqNcmotBD1Nm+MIxC/w1dwc6DpOFI7dtLTjowDskqnOAuxfwVCDvzcxI+KT2GC VnCy+Xlq1mZ4fPP0wwwQ1QbznY9XEQackezlcCE2OdtnFIAH0iHa0hc+hvFoZHBDiKTMgUyC 3QWYdfog2DcyJbgD7NX+PyLGaVeDDhnGHf8eNZYPBngzPUTvmTVgewDiLDG6iHXcplm73hF7 SiGWK0shcUEruIUk/WMS61FkHCfPilo9Ezh9HkGtG8n43+LwGtOD5AnkLq9R/ZHXB/mRiVLC 31Wlx1yPKN61JWSOQ+ert+gwcKxI1rp/lwCRsaLXlPjqcRfEDgtYMQ== X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 69.72.42.5 X-Mailgun-Sid: WyJkYzdiZCIsICI0MDU1OEBkZWJidWdzLmdudS5vcmciLCAiMDg1NDdhIl0= Received: from wilsonb.com (wilsonb.com [104.199.203.42]) by smtp-out-n07.prod.us-west-2.postgun.com with SMTP id 61ecc3301b960c38b75adc4c (version=TLS1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256); Sun, 23 Jan 2022 02:53:36 GMT Received: from localhost (q045100.dynamic.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [203.181.45.100]) by wilsonb.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E5FE1A052C; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 02:53:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=wilsonb.com; s=201703; t=1642906412; bh=JDaoEm7HOFq7AStiSXCrNE/HtQDWOH6W4TgICqxoRIk=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:From:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=0j8HmPHcHA296l6K59DB+u8LxLPiFoSG37VNWiEeQwZkJVaYQ5FhCTMQofLsRoMoR 3VlfnWQ+Igto8g3f9jITEYlU7wVqmr+jAtgkcNsaE/ARdHYzahfyzPqRM2xeVDgYpQ OOboion17EibyDLrzWlfYrUOuXy4pK+bbvGn7So2EDgpoz/VFtwmF1DHsXoSDj8g7x jfbENyxbI+hxNtDmdXJgMGxleUEh8yCLQtklgv6p/XYTf4TVcpiGLQCmUQKCv27hL1 rKxJd1ugnxnLn4DR1q8lWmp0BiI8NX68cAmeoxIbLhnYYjDXQvIr3UUpca91Q3GCou JHRBm7oSOdZuizBa+4YC5m9jUot8QUNMh+xlYjOxupAbn9HgGxnHOQYw4R57ZhnKIt SGqTMxdQm3Fg/KTCtPVYdyIHeMstcXj607EqtBDSRdKifnC27JWq8B17QLKP4FpP81 55UFrGaQyhYzpM7RfQUgKTrVa2+vuL2lOP098hN3wffy1vQF57D/DW/yW/EFwSvLrb ckSvM0xkoHWgvNlaMNelCovjJ42XHeMktln7jSDleuBW4Ng8qskaI0e85ohUUJ43UQ 5I8HKX1WSBhFejQAhKoEqviNi39njMhrOdZAi6MHeKEAFoZgGaTmj/5qnFe+JQ1UlU ffIGMdfQbZ0N3he5ADIx2J9s= Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:53:25 +0900 To: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: bug#40558: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts From: elaexuotee@wilsonb.com References: <874ktqxalv.fsf@jlicht.xyz> <27M6ZG86RAW9I.2JWF3V3MICGED@wilsonb.com> <8736203agz.fsf@elephly.net> <2O0C65TN1X0RC.2X8CEIYC1SBBG@wilsonb.com> <87sfthovg2.fsf@elephly.net> <321HNQCQ83DRR.3A7ZBRV3CBQ8S@wilsonb.com> <87o844p5sj.fsf@elephly.net> In-Reply-To: <87o844p5sj.fsf@elephly.net> Message-Id: <2JED6QHA0S33Q.3I79W95FRDN8Q@wilsonb.com> User-Agent: mblaze/1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40558 Cc: 40558@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) > At least the question =E2=80=9Cis texlive-amsfonts broken=E2=80=9D is def= initively > answered. This was what this issue was about, no? I=E2=80=99d rather ke= ep the > other issue separate. Well, it's still broken in the sense that we're not able to typeset with eufm10, no? That said, I guess it could make sense to define this issue as "tlpdb non-conformance problems" and close as fixed. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Jan 23 06:02:42 2022 Received: (at 40558-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jan 2022 11:02:42 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38616 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nBadt-00057B-SR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 06:02:42 -0500 Received: from sender4-of-o51.zoho.com ([136.143.188.51]:21113) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nBadr-000572-TK for 40558-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 06:02:40 -0500 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1642935757; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=NBsIK7lz0CSMDtX2+YiyorLZNdHqmD8HzxYt/ep0RX9SM8MEpqy23S5Os6pcqQsWqrT4w8SoNuQQu7kxd4B2DxgtLTB1G4k3Y60N6JbD5Tb1WwQh8sMFGza6qWqEA+UwGYNPne0WjUbC2vs9yxLg59Q6f2updkTuG/rKjXPxfjk= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1642935757; h=Content-Type:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=en55H5/XHBEmd7eHdogt2OjkJ70yW2clKkte/+LawoE=; b=YpadZonVuY2CVgO4PqomdQe6734jWg47LH6cA/vk4MLo5GNK+t7sn3WkIe32aW54iRoCv+cqSLL3aMleR5BYU+n+90lIZqV0SDPIF56Zw6jKOQWdvGfjjO4OJuA2ELYFMC3+vnXCv/e2oQ1TghRj07i+UZOIy2yj86FEoLal6Zw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=elephly.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rekado@elephly.net; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1642935757; s=zoho; d=elephly.net; i=rekado@elephly.net; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-reply-to:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=en55H5/XHBEmd7eHdogt2OjkJ70yW2clKkte/+LawoE=; b=OQrPUBPnVRtBJsDxwsOZUCN6WFi09sPOyXnxRsHec4Pk581pTHVN2t0Xj29LWwDA nVsG5xiy4fHcTSiqIjS+LJlbabpx6e6qZFv9l+Z3bCSn1RzurMiR8wcJUruC4vK/tKV Nrf6YUtOjupBkS9dsZ/BgS+jzOy/DpBn4JsZXY70= Received: from localhost (p508e82b6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.142.130.182]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1642935754246440.3150426412201; Sun, 23 Jan 2022 03:02:34 -0800 (PST) References: <874ktqxalv.fsf@jlicht.xyz> <27M6ZG86RAW9I.2JWF3V3MICGED@wilsonb.com> <8736203agz.fsf@elephly.net> <2O0C65TN1X0RC.2X8CEIYC1SBBG@wilsonb.com> <87sfthovg2.fsf@elephly.net> <321HNQCQ83DRR.3A7ZBRV3CBQ8S@wilsonb.com> <87o844p5sj.fsf@elephly.net> <2JED6QHA0S33Q.3I79W95FRDN8Q@wilsonb.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 27.2 From: Ricardo Wurmus To: elaexuotee@wilsonb.com Subject: Re: bug#40558: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:55:57 +0100 In-reply-to: <2JED6QHA0S33Q.3I79W95FRDN8Q@wilsonb.com> X-URL: https://elephly.net X-PGP-Key: https://elephly.net/rekado.pubkey X-PGP-Fingerprint: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC Message-ID: <87y236ogu1.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" X-Zoho-Virus-Status: 1 X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40558-done Cc: 40558-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable elaexuotee@wilsonb.com writes: >> At least the question =E2=80=9Cis texlive-amsfonts broken=E2=80=9D is de= finitively >> answered. This was what this issue was about, no? I=E2=80=99d rather k= eep the >> other issue separate. > > Well, it's still broken in the sense that we're not able to typeset with > eufm10, no? Something might be broken, but it=E2=80=99s not texlive-amsfonts. Going back to the first message in this bug report here I can no longer reproduce the problem. I used this manifest: --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline; filename=manifest.scm Content-Description: manifest (specifications->manifest (list "texlive-amscls" "texlive-amsfonts" "texlive-base" "texlive-cm" "texlive-cm-super" "texlive-fontinst" "texlive-fonts-ec" "texlive-fonts-latex" "texlive-generic-ulem" "texlive-hyperref" "texlive-latex-amsmath" "texlive-latex-base" "texlive-latex-capt-of" "texlive-latex-preview" "texlive-latex-wrapfig" "texlive-latexconfig" "texlive-metafont" "texlive-oberdiek" "texlive-pstool" "texlive-unicode-data")) --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain And this TeX file: --=-=-= Content-Type: application/x-tex Content-Disposition: inline; filename=broken.tex Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 XGRvY3VtZW50Y2xhc3NbMTFwdF17YXJ0aWNsZX0KXHVzZXBhY2thZ2V7YW1zbWF0aH0KXHVzZXBh Y2thZ2V7dWxlbX0KXGJlZ2lue2RvY3VtZW50fQpIZWxsbyEgXCh5ID0geF4yXCkKXGVuZHtkb2N1 bWVudH0K --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Running pdflatex on the file throws no errors and it produces a PDF file as expected. So I=E2=80=99ll close this issue. I suggest we keep investigating the prob= lem with eufm10 in issue 53339. --=20 Ricardo --=-=-=-- From unknown Sat Jun 21 10:21:03 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: Did not alter fixed versions and reopened. Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 13:48:01 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # Did not alter fixed versions and reopened. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 11 09:58:22 2022 Received: (at 40558) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2022 14:58:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60805 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nIXNO-0008La-3y for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:58:22 -0500 Received: from mail-wr1-f43.google.com ([209.85.221.43]:44624) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nIXNK-0008LK-SU for 40558@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 09:58:20 -0500 Received: by mail-wr1-f43.google.com with SMTP id u1so1948182wrg.11 for <40558@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:58:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mTpCwJOPteQXlVGA2j8BUe/+Y0l4skdQ6EddOTP3YjQ=; b=LXo6WairPtJW8kGQ4QxcU3MZgs5rdGjwPpOzIQS0LfEL6lRxgS6p99KedPC8kUipi7 Mg9GPUdq8YSwItCye0WSQ4xTv7mSw5lX3UA/HxZVBQDaBA9B7GeOPjuROQ3ioxaCKWoa R6AGZy6KE8lV2TRJJ0jT/KSgHfgx5p0phs71GmL8i+Yuk1Onq9pNBGZwihcV1LCE5F5q TqWXO5AeWBZ1bn2OYSnFdk2o8Fz9Ea0FqkfhAUGYHzrCflbxAyI62GsFTGvk3tN4HEXS ZG9uDnTQWcO2UojLv2MyKaSWsukc7eU2c/yVSpcIqHnItieiP6LjgVEV/Ncn4f00B8ov 1BGA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to :message-id:user-agent:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mTpCwJOPteQXlVGA2j8BUe/+Y0l4skdQ6EddOTP3YjQ=; b=sUHHG1wIlaA13ebXYJm3keKi5hUAJsw0DvtfzMeGylFTt95a1lVutINRSvsMrIpUTy ZBx5c0hyBb0OJHbxSM6VPoIkrs7yAbMgKEr67e4/qxrxE6Chc6FpesJDZFZtxbQfoTEI MLVjaqo8qdMStj/m7WztRGmTcLsAbFBsgiWOhPnHcH8rJCo6iIzpUHIvMmx8AXE8rS4M WxwY4QVc+FFWEsnJ78n8jar1iNpZimh96dE77w8r9Y3e1DrsvjwY8a/xxV3iOL5TQJMj CklATY/Uxs0pvf4oX4ltRKSE5SrpXR+Qd2xIxxdUj4DwXn+ENkx9hgkI1ijXnwiE4pOv ZqVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531OAEZ2wH1QTwqC8Nj8Gc6tHS/2pFpHAbX5t2DOGgQEfRZd5s3c qVogd1e+FowqBbR4tOC81yV3rcvpP/4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJysJLALp6G72Z5l/FrVXXU+PwuxQ5Y4DoEQYMFQ9U5mPAPhPsmMKF4DO7QcXH4Wl6h+Adwwow== X-Received: by 2002:adf:bc83:: with SMTP id g3mr1681969wrh.132.1644591492652; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:58:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from pfiuh07 ([193.48.40.241]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g6sm20859177wrq.97.2022.02.11.06.58.12 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 11 Feb 2022 06:58:12 -0800 (PST) From: zimoun To: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: bug#40558: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts References: <874ktqxalv.fsf@jlicht.xyz> <27M6ZG86RAW9I.2JWF3V3MICGED@wilsonb.com> <8736203agz.fsf@elephly.net> <2O0C65TN1X0RC.2X8CEIYC1SBBG@wilsonb.com> <87sfthovg2.fsf@elephly.net> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 15:58:09 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87sfthovg2.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Fri, 21 Jan 2022 18:21:11 +0100") Message-ID: <87fsop8n7i.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40558 Cc: elaexuotee@wilsonb.com, 40558@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi Ricardo, On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 at 18:21, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >> The only way I have gotten it to typeset under a texlive-union so far is= by >> munging texlive-amsfonts as Jelle mentioned. > > I have since added texlive-amsfonts/fixed, which installs all the files > it is supposed to (according do the tlpdb). I=E2=80=99ve also since fixe= d font > search. > > Can this issue be closed? I reopen the issue because it appears to be broken for beamer. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- \documentclass{beamer} \begin{document} \begin{frame} \begin{tabular}{c|c} foo & bar \end{tabular} \end{frame} \end{document} --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- leads to the error: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- ! Math formula deleted: Insufficient extension fonts. \endtabular ->\crcr \egroup \egroup $ \egroup l.7 \end{frame} ? --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Weird, isn't? That's because 'tabular' uses some math stuff for aligning, IIUC. Otherwise, this example: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- \documentclass{beamer} \begin{document} \begin{frame} \begin{equation} x \end{equation} \end{frame} \end{document} --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Using Guix 4dffece, the invokation is: guix shell -C -m manifest.scm -- pdflatex foo.tex where 'manifest.scm' reads: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (specifications->manifest (list "rubber" "texlive-base" "texlive-fonts-ec" "texlive-kpfonts" "texlive-cm-super" "texlive-amsfonts-fixed" "texlive-beamer" "texlive-translator" "texlive-ulem" "texlive-capt-of" "texlive-hyperref" "texlive-carlisle" "texlive-latex-geometry" "texlive-latex-wrapfig" "texlive-latex-amsmath" "texlive-babel-french" "texlive-latex-listings" )) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- (Maybe I miss a package in the manifest?) Last, note it works using the BIG 'texlive' package. Cheers, simon From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Feb 11 14:42:21 2022 Received: (at 40558) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Feb 2022 19:42:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:32789 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nIboD-000714-GG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:42:21 -0500 Received: from sender4-of-o51.zoho.com ([136.143.188.51]:21199) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nIboA-00070t-Uq for 40558@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 14:42:20 -0500 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1644608536; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=dGgNOCuriVfe9D5vDWIaNTfD+dErO0Z76gYkvTtBnCKCv0my/oMpgJv5A2bMBB7tBg3DxJBCPKbUQR9EpZyLxLOObzMtpsproc73dNaMVQmtQQwtPFC1Y/3SthXJ6BKp4VaO2IKKDlzH8hxdeG6YL5mh96llpW5NGpcsgL5tFk8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1644608536; h=Content-Type:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=R+dggRopwCSk3eG3gwoCkX42aseGq6kJGqa2qXWrF9E=; b=WgPNxJHZ1gUyJPV6yz4rGb5LogRYjgSMZW49RIP+Ki3d//hAGkk0I1/0yAM/urlVG/gaTe7p4z4d5D12+qvWw/mh+OaxQieqX3roRnku5Vr0VYGViuLFEFYfST5c95mJmpYH3pzoUume4zM2qUR/7h+JB8ylkgcwgNG0MSiGrzQ= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=elephly.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rekado@elephly.net; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1644608536; s=zoho; d=elephly.net; i=rekado@elephly.net; h=References:From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-reply-to:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=R+dggRopwCSk3eG3gwoCkX42aseGq6kJGqa2qXWrF9E=; b=WGaKYEeBbm071BmjR687fbnWrwFNRbQYMPOfG7EBaWwIlxsYRMwUnqTYnNbtLKmU MWkzG6t2eu2bBSqSwa+NGBzj5t/NTQZlErD3ci9kkHaHS/ZxudT7a+LOiQJI/6qlha8 Yqw40wpJkh6VdK29/AmKQ5LyhHoBm1TEO+9QW9Ys= Received: from localhost (p54ad4f79.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.173.79.121]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1644608533505907.7256783469585; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:42:13 -0800 (PST) References: <874ktqxalv.fsf@jlicht.xyz> <87h7xenect.fsf@jlicht.xyz> User-agent: mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 27.2 From: Ricardo Wurmus To: 40558@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#40558: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 20:39:05 +0100 In-reply-to: <87h7xenect.fsf@jlicht.xyz> X-URL: https://elephly.net X-PGP-Key: https://elephly.net/rekado.pubkey X-PGP-Fingerprint: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC Message-ID: <87h795tcl1.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40558 Cc: zimoun X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) I can reproduce this with a simpler document: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- \documentclass{article} \usepackage{amsfonts} \begin{document} \begin{equation} x \end{equation} \end{document} --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- and this manifest --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- (specifications->manifest (list "texlive-base" "texlive-amsfonts-fixed" ;; "texlive-latex-amsmath" )) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- -- Ricardo From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Feb 13 04:33:26 2022 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 13 Feb 2022 09:33:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36367 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nJBG2-0007it-Mi for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2022 04:33:26 -0500 Received: from sender4-of-o51.zoho.com ([136.143.188.51]:21140) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nJBFz-0007ii-IP for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2022 04:33:25 -0500 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1644744801; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=WQ0yzrPmW3TbAD+2KLhm6BTdQ9DNUXuC1CUVrEWHx+oFLWUoikwPcJYIP8ghg1X3hd/RbZecXbVvIjP27WMSb4p6GDnE4YjADnIjJu9XA48IPXfXKZaLLAjpEppxu/PukwyZ5ShXOoCEFlRmLxVyrI+ItsZVaV0bQEnDPLGGR6c= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1644744801; h=Content-Type:Date:From:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:To; bh=sD/8zB6Sl6GAJEKra7Uu7dLHw7mb07vIYnkRjSVYaTs=; b=inN/QuIoaxi7ME8Bql1Vjt9hCCnw7asjtI0QHqiYQp15HuXDklNVWkMkJs4H85ox3GF2ywPYOHP23D4pQSeWQMNhRVLcPm0lUxo0p9LOuS6/WklZnNJh9dSoPen0RzPYM82jT/piO23YXGpIiAfsNmZeRM7RnHA2HO3Wi+dk0SY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=elephly.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rekado@elephly.net; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1644744801; s=zoho; d=elephly.net; i=rekado@elephly.net; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=sD/8zB6Sl6GAJEKra7Uu7dLHw7mb07vIYnkRjSVYaTs=; b=ZFEVkl0zi3nzeK2NeExP4oegnRf5xH6+u3UZ5AGrxnLY578rxgmWPVa/RemZ6EXS fXFqPto9Q2+NHkew9jmIplVcmrR0urTbv7GF6RmXAq/lSTBAE7azNlhfMj9jhnTIuE2 FwoUlq7nVJiy2LKmxBaDXb7VdwEsZtIbJZM4sC3I= Received: from localhost (p508e81ae.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.142.129.174]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1644744800991228.39022408166227; Sun, 13 Feb 2022 01:33:20 -0800 (PST) User-agent: mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 27.2 From: Ricardo Wurmus To: control@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: merge bugs Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2022 10:31:31 +0100 X-URL: https://elephly.net X-PGP-Key: https://elephly.net/rekado.pubkey X-PGP-Fingerprint: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC Message-ID: <871r07ru01.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) merge 53339 40558 thanks -- Ricardo From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 15 11:36:15 2022 Received: (at 40558-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Feb 2022 16:36:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:46275 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nK0oJ-0005k1-L0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:36:15 -0500 Received: from sender4-of-o51.zoho.com ([136.143.188.51]:21130) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nK0oH-0005jq-4O for 40558-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 11:36:13 -0500 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1644942971; cv=none; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; b=jt+03xebetK8YGm6HuPd3FdXp9pF2i2TGBPuCoTONLv81dUuMe1UvqrgdZOwEJdjP94nyNzseUU1hvuf9kzqoWmgNaMPaEBDJqWCtcCFvpI1pyJE1NU4/KpECj02cXAVufLJx7llRH6Me/oPOIBXEKahe4vN0q0BTMXoh4+f4rY= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; t=1644942971; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Date:From:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject:To; bh=BAtX/HFIN+1JI3Uve+s0PhjbBNUrJQGwzsTj8Xmt8Y8=; b=UzIXXaE75cJhKwKPmSqyG9C0L8RYxB4+nY/tn+skEnEue/2aXFGwBvOerCytZRjUh2Ewm8/Z4z6tUILsmt0Ma5LCQE4iBaA+4s5bzWCKT9iSQQvPXRRfpUgF87W4grpmPtRe1B59P903InR/aZ03mv8RhjE9Vb67/0pLZizgiuc= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com; dkim=pass header.i=elephly.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=rekado@elephly.net; dmarc=pass header.from= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1644942971; s=zoho; d=elephly.net; i=rekado@elephly.net; h=From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; bh=BAtX/HFIN+1JI3Uve+s0PhjbBNUrJQGwzsTj8Xmt8Y8=; b=NP+TSMOnWgMYKJsgxwQcC+Thf9gCVpA1Os2yynf0MSnD8nUdmL0QzpBPiEet+U9s 7jQzH+5cvmfcppgCP6gL5gb0rk4od4ds7EbS4B+toRKdFkFys9lMIro2bq04UH34ir4 sD/tju5ATsRZ9afM/xZm2uggdow6IxE/DLnBJAWw= Received: from localhost (p54ad4f78.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.173.79.120]) by mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1644942970637908.7979538799692; Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:36:10 -0800 (PST) User-agent: mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 27.2 From: Ricardo Wurmus To: 40558-done@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 17:34:13 +0100 X-URL: https://elephly.net X-PGP-Key: https://elephly.net/rekado.pubkey X-PGP-Fingerprint: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC Message-ID: <871r04ozns.fsf@elephly.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-ZohoMailClient: External X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 40558-done X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) This is now fixed with commit 64fcf9508af318cc2d71811815cfbe99063867b1. The cause: we generated the tfm files from afm and pl files in a misguided attempt to build as many things from =E2=80=9Csource=E2=80=9D as = possible. Turns out that this results in bad tfm files. These files mere meant to be installed just as they are included in the upstream bundle. That=E2=80=99s what we=E2=80=99re doing now. --=20 Ricardo From unknown Sat Jun 21 10:21:03 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 11:24:07 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator