> Gerben Wierda wrote: > >>texfont and/or ConTeXt seems to be keyed to a certain distribution setup. >>I would say that for ConTeXt that is ok (though as far as I know Hans >>himself keeps the fonts in TEXMFFONTS or so, so he needs a specialized >>type-tmf.dat as well). That the default is TeX Live also seems to be fine >>to me. >> >> > the reason for a separate three texmffonts is that it permits me to > update the main tree (wipe out, copy new) and still have my installed > extra fonts > > (i tried to get a texmffonts var in the regular texmf.cnf but that was > rejected: objection "too many trees" while in the meantime we have more > trees in tl as well -) > >>The easiest way would be if you can give this as an argument to texfonts. >> >>Another issue is that fonts can be in multiple trees. Some i-Packages may >>install in texmf.local (so it can be easily uninstalled), or fonts can be >>in texmf.tetex or texmf.gwtex). I do not know enough about texfont, but >> if >>Hans wants to work with me we can sort that out. After all, I probably >>have a good example of a non-TL multi-tree setup. BTW, there are support >>reasons why I do not use the TEXMFMAIN name or the standard texmf-dist >>directory name. >> >> > > ah, i see, so the problem is TEXMFMAIN in the dat file > > before we start hacking ... this --ro stands for --rootlist so it may be > a list; so > > ..... --ro=TEXMFMAIN,TEXMF.TETEX,TEXMF.GWTEX
--ro=TEXMFMAIN,TEXMFTE,TEXMFGW > should work; can someone test that? Are these "write" or "read" trees? If it is write, then my guess is the default shoul dbe TEXMFLOCAL because officially that is the place where local site modifications should go. That would also survive an upgrade or install of TeX itself. G _______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
