GNU bug report logs -
#40558
Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts
Previous Next
Reported by: Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 16:16:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Merged with 53339
Done: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your message dated Sun, 23 Jan 2022 11:55:57 +0100
with message-id <87y236ogu1.fsf <at> elephly.net>
and subject line Re: bug#40558: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #40558,
regarding Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts
to be marked as done.
(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)
--
40558: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=40558
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]
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 :).
[working.tex (application/x-tex, attachment)]
[broken.tex (application/x-tex, attachment)]
[Message part 6 (text/plain, inline)]
- Jelle
[Message part 7 (message/rfc822, inline)]
[Message part 8 (text/plain, inline)]
elaexuotee <at> wilsonb.com writes:
>> At least the question “is texlive-amsfonts broken” is definitively
>> answered. This was what this issue was about, no? I’d rather keep 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’s 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:
[manifest.scm (text/plain, inline)]
(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"))
[Message part 10 (text/plain, inline)]
And this TeX file:
[broken.tex (application/x-tex, inline)]
[Message part 12 (text/plain, inline)]
Running pdflatex on the file throws no errors and it produces a PDF file
as expected.
So I’ll close this issue. I suggest we keep investigating the problem
with eufm10 in issue 53339.
--
Ricardo
This bug report was last modified 3 years and 98 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.