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
Message #37 received at 40558-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (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 3 (text/plain, inline)]
And this TeX file:
[broken.tex (application/x-tex, inline)]
[Message part 5 (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.