GNU bug report logs - #40558
Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts

Previous Next

Full log

Message #23 received at 40558 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: elaexuotee <at> wilsonb.com
Cc: 40558 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#40558: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and
 duplicate fonts
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 18:21:11 +0100

elaexuotee <at> wilsonb.com writes:

> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net> 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.
>> 
>> In any case, that’s unrelated to Jelle’s 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. 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 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’ve also since fixed font
search.

Can this issue be closed?

-- 
Ricardo

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.