Re: now I think this is a bug
+ Mate Wierdl [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | So I decided to reinstall teTeX without doing any configuration: | | # rm -rf /usr/local/teTeX/ | # mkdir -p /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf | # gzip -dc teTeX-texmf-1.0.tar.gz | (umask 0; cd /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf; tar |xf -) | # gzip -dc teTeX-src-1.0.tar.gz | tar xvf - | # cd teTeX-1.0 | # sh -c './configure configure.log 21' | # sh -c 'make world world.log 21' To me, this indicates that you ran make world without waiting for the configure run to complete. If so, it's a miracle the make even got off the ground, let alone the miracle it would be to have a working setup afterwords. And if you did wait, why this convoluted way of running the commands? - Harald
teTeX releases
I know the question I am about to ask is one rarely answered, and for excellent reasons - but I ask it anyway: Is there a new teTeX release underway anytime soon? The present stable release is getting quite old. We certainly need amslatex version 2, for example. I also have the impression that pdftex has been improved quite a bit lately, and it would be nice to have a recent version of it. Now please don't get me wrong: I appreciate the ease and convenience of installing teTeX, and I also appreciate the longish interval between releases, which helps to diminish the pressure to always upgrade to the latest version. But with more than a year since the previous release I think maybe the time is ripe for another stable release. (Perhaps after the next LaTeX release, unless June 1 arrives very late this year?) If a new stable release is not very likely to happen soon, I'll consider the latest beta instead. What experiences do people have with the beta releases? And do they track stuff like amslatex and pdftex well? My dilemma here is twofold: I maintain teTeX on umpteen architectures for our entire university, so I cannot afford a high risk of mistakes (an argument in favour of stable releases). And I basically only have the time for major upgrades during the summer months, which may be difficult to synchronize with stable releases (an argument in favour of beta releases). Any insight, wisdom, or (gasp!) actual information will be very welcome indeed. - Harald
Re: tex capacity exceeded
+ Pieter Rijken [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| With openjade I'm generating a 1200 page large PDF document.
| After about 600 pages pdfjadetex quits with the error that
| it has run out of capacity. In this case it has run out of
| the parameter 'number of strings' (about 52000).
|
| I figured out that the parameter max_strings has to be increased.
| This parameter cannot be changed in the texmf.cnf file.
Sure it can. What gave you the idea that it cannot? (Did you make a
local texmf.cnf and forget to set TEXMFCNF?)
| Therefore, this number has to be fixed in the sources and pdftex
| needs to be recompiled, I assume.
|
| The problem now is, that the value of max_strings must not exceed
| the value of max_halfword. Unfortunately I need a value of 20
| for max_strings. For this, I have to increase the value of
| max_halfword.
Indeed, if you want it *that* big it seems that you need to recompile.
But tex.ch already sets
@d max_halfword==@FFF {largest allowable value in a |halfword|}
so that isn't the problem. More difficult is the bit that says
@d ssup_max_strings ==65535
{Larger values may be used, but then the arrays consume much more memory.}
which eventually stops you from making max_strings bigger than that
number. You could try changing that 65535 into @FFF - maybe that
would do the trick?
(And remember the structure of .ch files: The lines following @x are
original lines from the .web file, while the lines following the next
@y are their replacement. So it only makes sense to edit a .ch file
after @y line, before the next @x line.)
Disclaimer: I have never tried this sort of thing myself, so I cannot
guarantee it. Let us know if you succeed.
- Harald
Re: CM-Super font package v0.2.0
Just a quick question to you all: Did any of you successfully use the CM-super fonts with teTeX 1.07 (or dvips 5.86)? The font files seem to confuse the heck out of this version of dvips. Since Vladimir runs dvips 5.86d and is unable to reproduce my problem, it is my conjecture that it is indeed my older dvips that is at fault - but I would like to have that confirmed or disproved before deciding what to do next. Below are two sample runs. The first one is from a document I have, the other from running tex testfont on ecrm1000: ; dvips -Pcm-super -o test.ps froberg This is dvips(k) 5.86 Copyright 1999 Radical Eye Software (www.radicaleye.com) ' TeX output 2001.09.22:1558' - test.ps texc.prot1.enctexps.pro. sfti0900.pfb Second number not found in Char string of '/FontName' At this point, dvips just stopped, producing no further output. ; dvips -Pcm-super testfont This is dvips(k) 5.86 Copyright 1999 Radical Eye Software (www.radicaleye.com) ' TeX output 2001.10.07:2224' - testfont.ps texc.prot1.enctexps.pro. cmtt10.pfbsfrm1000.pfbcmti10.pfbcmti10.afmThis is DVIPS, t1part module cmti10.afm: No such file or directory Warning: after loading AFM file only 0 chars found instead 135981465 for cmti10.pfb cmr10.pfbcmr10.afmThis is DVIPS, t1part module cmr10.afm: No such file or directory Warning: after loading AFM file only 0 chars found instead 135981465 for cmr10.pfb cmr7.pfbcmr7.afmThis is DVIPS, t1part module cmr7.afm: No such file or directory Warning: after loading AFM file only 0 chars found instead 135981465 for cmr7.pfb [1] So this one actually produced some output, only missing the glyphs from the fonts mentioned after sfrm1000 in the dvips run. And in case you wonder about my file config.cm-super used in these runs: o p +bsr.map p +bsr-interpolated.map p +hoekwater.map p +cm-super-t1.map p +cm-super-t2a.map p +cm-super-t2b.map p +cm-super-t2c.map p +cm-super-ts1.map p +cm-super-x2.map Any ideas? (I did RTFS a little bit, but the code in t1part.c, where all this seems to happen, takes too much work for me to figure out right now. I'll do it if I have to, of course, but hope to avoid it.) - Harald
Re: CM-Super font package v0.2.0
+ Rolf Niepraschk [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote: | [...] | texc.prot1.enctexps.pro. sfti0900.pfb Second number not found in Char |string of '/FontName' | | | I have found a similar problem with dvips 5.86e and the brushscript font | (the previous version). With | | .. type1fix --infile=pbsi.pfa.orig --outfile=pbsi.pfa \ |--kill-unenc=yes --ofmt=pfa | .. t1binary pbsi.pfa pbsi.pfb | | I have solve this problem. `type1fix' is a perl script from the TeXtrace | package. May be this helps also with CM-Super... No, it didn't help. With --kill-unenc=yes it removed a bunch of glyphs from the font file; and whether I included that or not, dvips failed in the same way. + Nicolas Markey [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | Le 08.10.01, Harald Hanche-Olsen a écrit : | |Just a quick question to you all: Did any of you successfully use the |CM-super fonts with teTeX 1.07 (or dvips 5.86)? | | I got the same problem; installing dvips 5.86d solves that problem. Well, Nelson Beebe did some extensive testing. With dvips(k) 5.86e, he got these results: On linux: ok; on irix: segfault; on alpha/osf: 531 Subr not found. The latter happened also with 5.86d. He also suggested trying t1disasm, t1binary, and t1ascii on the fonts. They will work on the font files (well, I only worked on sfrm1000.pfb) without complaint, and converting between format and then back to pfb yields a file identical to the original. I also got hold of Adobe's specifications, and can certainly see no lack of compliance there. I know it's usually bad form to quote private mail in a public forum, but this one from a mail exchange with Nelson Beebe sums up the situation better than I could have stated it myself: + Nelson H. F. Beebe [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | You are right that dvips may well make assumptions about fonts | that are unwarranted. This has been an ongoing problem, with | Adobe's own TypeManager assuming more stylized formatting than | Adobe's black-and-white book requires in its documentation | of the Type 1 format. So, I guess the next step is to try to understand t1part.c and how it fails on these font files. Then maybe the font files can be tweaked so the problem does not happen, and an improved t1part.c might make it into dvips in the long run. Please note that, as I no longer believe the dvips version is an important factor in this problem, I think this discussion properly belongs on the tex-fonts lists and should be discontinued on the teTeX list. I have set the Reply-To header accordingly; override it only if you must. - Harald
Release?
Now that the latest tex-live release is practically on its way out the door, can we expect a corresponding teTeX release? (The relationship between tex-live and teTeX seems shady to me at best...) I currently run the latest teTeX beta personally, but don't dare expose more than a select few of my users to it - although I must say have had no problems with it myself. (But surely I only use a tiny portion of it.) Anyway, I am asking because this time of year is such an excellent time for upgrades, and I want my users to have access to a good pdfTeX. - Harald
Re: teTeX 1.0.7 doesn't install
+ Magnus Mager [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | test -f /usr/local/bin/i586-pc-linux-gnu/texconfig \ | TEXMFMAIN=/usr/local/share/texmf | |PATH=/usr/local/bin/i586-pc-linux-gnu:/usr/local/bin/i586-pc-linux-gnu:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin | | \ | /usr/local/bin/i586-pc-linux-gnu/texconfig init | ^[[H^[[2JError opening terminal: generic. | ^[[H^[2Jmake: *** [install] Error 1 | | Whatever this means... Any suggestions? texconfig is a shell script. It seems that one of the programs it tries to run fails on your OS because of some terminal related problem. Try running the script with -x to see where it fails: TEXMFMAIN=/usr/local/share/texmf \ PATH=/usr/local/bin/i586-pc-linux-gnu:/usr/local/bin/i586-pc-linux-gnu:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin \ sh -x /usr/local/bin/i586-pc-linux-gnu/texconfig init That might provide a clue. (I am assuming that the TEXMFMAIN=/usr/local/share/texmf bit was part of the command. There seems to be a missing backslash, but maybe that was your mail program wrapping the line.) - Harald
Re: Mathfrak-bug?
+ Erik Frisk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| below is a document that fails with teTeX-beta 20020530 (unfortunately I
| have no possibility to try the latest beta). There seem to be some
| problems with \mathfrak and AMSfonts since the text
| [2002/01/19v2.2gAMSfontdefinitions] appears in the middle of the matrix.
That seems to be a genuine AMSfonts bug, and as such has nothing to do
with teTeX. FWIW, I see the same problem with teTeX beta-20021029.
The first occurence of \mathfrak triggers the loading of a font
description file. This happens within a matrix environment, and
that environment (like so many AMSmath environments) is quite
complex. I guess it reads its contents and tries to expand macros
along the way, and that plays havoc with the file inclusion.
A workaround is to use \mathfrak before you get to the matrix
environment. For example, use it in a throwaway box:
\setbox0\hbox{$\mathfrak{a}$}
(before \begin{document} is fine). Then the problem goes away.
But you might wish to report this to the AMSfonts maintainers as well.
- Harald
