switches to (probably) T1 encoding at some point.
No. texinfo.tex has no concept of "font encoding". What it does (has
always done) is use the EC fonts for characters that do not exist in the
CM fonts, such as eth, thorn, quotesinglbase, etc. If those characters
are used in a document, then
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Gavin Smith
wrote:
> Are you sure that you are using the texinfo.tex from Texinfo 6.3?
>
Right now, there's no texinfo-6.3 in Fedora. My colleague (
vcrho...@redhat.com) is planning to add this to Fedora Rawhide this
afternoon. (Unfortunately, it's too late to ad
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Gavin Smith wrote:
> If anyone could give more specific information on this, that would be
> great. What fonts are missing, and when are they required?
I have seen the same problem on Debian installations since quite some
time. On and off cm-super is needed. It seems that texi
On 19 September 2016 at 13:29, Gavin Smith wrote:
> \indexlbrace ->{\ifmonospace \else \ecfont
>\fi \char 123}
I don't know where this definition is coming from: it should be the
following definition:
\def\lbracechar{{\ifmonospace\char123\else\ensurema
On 19 September 2016 at 13:25, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Gavin Smith
> wrote:
>>
>> If anyone could give more specific information on this, that would be
>> great. What fonts are missing, and when are they required?
>
>
> Basically, I had to add these packag
On 19 September 2016 at 13:16, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Gavin Smith wrote:
>> If anyone could give more specific information on this, that would be
>> great. What fonts are missing, and when are they required?
>
> I have seen the same problem on Debian installations since qui
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Gavin Smith
wrote:
> If anyone could give more specific information on this, that would be
> great. What fonts are missing, and when are they required?
>
Basically, I had to add these packages:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=7863726
http://koji
On 19 September 2016 at 13:03, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]
wrote:
> Hello guys,
>
> I have located the problem with help from my colleague (Vitezslav Crhonek,
> maintainer of texinfo). For some reason, the newer version of texinfo (6.1+)
> is unable to fallback to different fonts when some other fonts
Hello guys,
I have located the problem with help from my colleague (Vitezslav Crhonek,
maintainer of texinfo). For some reason, the newer version of texinfo
(6.1+) is unable to fallback to different fonts when some other fonts are
unavailable.
Recap:
* I was able to compile documentation for gaw
"David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]" wrote:
> I guess I didn't make myself clear. By default the vanilla source code is
> used during build inside mock, no modifications to it are currently there.
> So, when I try the build for 4.1.4, it uses the texinfo.tex shipped with
> gawk. There shouldn't be any way fo
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:22 PM, wrote:
> Hi David.
>
> You need to figure out how to get mock to use the texinfo.tex shipped
> with gawk. Mock is stil using an older version. I support building the doc
> with what I ship. But not otherwise.
I guess I didn't make myself clear. By default the
Hi David.
You need to figure out how to get mock to use the texinfo.tex shipped
with gawk. Mock is stil using an older version. I support building the doc
with what I ship. But not otherwise.
It may be that you need to move to Texinfo 6.1 (or even the just released
Texinfo 6.3) for the latest Fe
Hello guys,
I was in a hurry yesterday, so I have accidentally sent the wrong log
file... :-/ Today, I looked into this more:
* I am able to create documentation if I normally use 'make -C doc/ pdf' or
'cd doc && make pdf && cd ..' for gawk-4.1.4 in my Fedora 24.
* The problem occurs when I try t
Gavin Smith wrote:
> On 12 September 2016 at 18:52, wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> >> there seems to be a regression for the documentation of gawk. I'm not able
> >> to compile the PDF version of it with current version 4.1.4. I was able to
> >> compile it in the same way for 4.1.3.
> >>
> >> There's a l
On 12 September 2016 at 18:52, wrote:
> Hi.
>
>> there seems to be a regression for the documentation of gawk. I'm not able
>> to compile the PDF version of it with current version 4.1.4. I was able to
>> compile it in the same way for 4.1.3.
>>
>> There's a lot of output during compilation, and
Hi.
> there seems to be a regression for the documentation of gawk. I'm not able
> to compile the PDF version of it with current version 4.1.4. I was able to
> compile it in the same way for 4.1.3.
>
> There's a lot of output during compilation, and unfortunately I do not have
> time to look at it
16 matches
Mail list logo
