On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 21:13 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > > I didn't check the mktexnam code - but I'm a little surprised here. I > wasn't aware of the test for SYSTEXMF, but in case the test "fails", > i.e. the input is from a private TEXMF tree, shouldn't the output go to > TEXMFVAR ($HOME/.texmf-var), too? And isn't VARTEXFONTS the fallback in > that case too, as it is if the input comes from a system tree?
I don't think it would be good, if ouput, which has been produced based on a font in private TEXMF tree, ended up in the system wide font cache. One possible problem are two users that have *differing* fonts but with *equal* names in there private TEXMF trees. There are possibly other reasons why mktexnam (line 138--185) distinguishs system trees from the rest. > Julian's idea that I mentioned previously is in line with what you > describe in the first paragraph. If I remember right, it goes > approximately like this: [...] Interesting. I am not sure, though, how important all this mktex* stuff will be in the future. Right now if we shipped the metrics for the EC fonts in teTeX (TeX Live does that IIRC) and told people to install cm-super, most invocations of mktex* would no-longer be necessary. > However, this requires some thorough thinking before implementing it, > careful coding, and in any case it is something to introduce upstream. Definitely. > I repeat myself: I do not think that we do have any serious problem. > The minor problems we have are much less severe in etch than they were > in sarge, and I'd rather close this bug, or maybe set it to wishlist > until Julian's idea gets implemented. ACK cheerio ralf