elaexuo...@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:
(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"))
And this TeX file:
broken.tex
Description: TeX document
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
