On 16/10/2011 22:33, Thomas Spuhler wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2011 04:05:52 am Giuseppe Ghibò wrote: >> On 26/09/2011 17:34, Anssi Hannula wrote: >>> On 26.09.2011 15:47, nicolas vigier wrote: >>>> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011, Thomas Spuhler wrote: >>>>> But are you sure about texlive providing it? >>>> I don't know. It looks like it's not in the texlive package. >>> My impression (from a few years back I think) is that standalone >>> texi2html is the texlive-era replacement for tetex-texi2html. >> It's not like this. The misalignment in having multiple versions comes >> from having different source of packages. tetex had it's own texi2html >> (so I guess texlive), which is certified and well QA and integrated with >> that tetex version, so it provides "texi2html". At a certain point newer >> versions of texi2html were placed in contrib because they were newer >> (there were also other packages in this situation, xdvi, prosper, etc.) >> and because of not touching the main tetex package. To handle this kind >> of misalignment a good way to proceed would be to go in the main package >> providing it (i.e. tetex/texlive) and try to merge the newer texi2html >> with the new one, then redoing the tests. This often doesn't happen >> because it takes a lot of amount of time, and require to handle with the >> main and bigger package (texlive/tetex), and people often don't do this >> if they are doing "snack packaging". >> >> The other way, which is to transform everything as "pluggable" (e.g. >> split packages at source, so for instance not having tetex providing >> texi2html) IMHO doesn't provide the same amount of certification, >> because the packager (packager not necessarely means the maintainer) >> just upgrade the version number, without taking care of re-testing, and >> in case he doesn't know in deep about that package what he does as side >> effect is to give away the upstream tetex/texlive certification >> (certification that the included, so older, texi2html package works well >> and has no flaws with the rest of the tetex/texlive distro) in favour of >> a newer version (hoping that if something goes wrong or of some bug some >> end-user would file a bug on bugzilla...). >> >> Bye. >> G. > Thanks for the explanation. > It seems you are pretty versed in texlive. Would you mind to look as why > muscore doesn't build anymore with the current texlive: > Font metrics written on mscore1-20.tfm. > Output written on mscore1-20.600gf (18 characters, 7172 bytes). > Transcript written on mscore1-20.log. > This is MetaPost, version 1.504 (kpathsea version 6.0.1) > (../mf2pt1.mp (/usr/share/texmf-dist/metapost/base/mfplain.mp > Preloading the plain base, version 0.99: preliminaries, > basic constants and mathematical macros, > macros for converting units, > macros and tables for various modes of operation, > macros for drawing and filling, > macros for proof labels and rules, > macros for character and font administration, > and a few last-minute items.)) > Transcript written on mf2pt1.log. > Invoking "mpost -mem=mf2pt1 -progname=mpost '\mode:=localfont; mag:=100; > bpppix 0.02; input feta20.mf'"... > > Sorry, I can't find the 'mf2pt1' preload file; will try 'plain'.This is > MetaPost, version 1.504 (kpathsea version 6.0.1) > (plain.mp > > It lloks as if mf2pt1 is missing, The script is available on it's own, put > old > texlive and tetex didn't show this problem. > I've not an installation with the package you are talking about handy to check myself, but you may try to add the following line to the file `kpsewhich fmtutil.cnf` (backtick included):
mpost mf2pt1 - -translate-file=cp227.tcx mf2pt1.mp (of course the file mf2pt1.mp should be provided somewhere [it's in CTAN:tex-archive/support/*mf2pt1*]), and then recreate the missed file with: fmtutil --missing (or --all). Bye Giuseppe.
