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

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#40558: closed (Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts"
 and duplicate fonts)
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 16:37:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your message dated Tue, 15 Feb 2022 17:34:13 +0100
with message-id <871r04ozns.fsf <at> elephly.net>
and subject line 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)]

From: Jelle Licht <jlicht <at> fsfe.org>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 18:15:08 +0200

[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)]

From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
To: 40558-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 17:34:13 +0100

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 “source” 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’s what we’re doing now.

-- 
Ricardo

Previous Next

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