Re: Mathfrak-bug?

2002-11-04 Thread Harald Hanche-Olsen
+ 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



Re: teTeX 1.0.7 doesn't install

2002-09-19 Thread Harald Hanche-Olsen

+ 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



Release?

2002-05-29 Thread Harald Hanche-Olsen

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: CM-Super font package v0.2.0

2001-10-10 Thread Harald Hanche-Olsen

+ 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




Re: CM-Super font package v0.2.0

2001-10-08 Thread Harald Hanche-Olsen

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: tex capacity exceeded

2001-06-15 Thread Harald Hanche-Olsen


+ 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




teTeX releases

2001-05-25 Thread Harald Hanche-Olsen

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: now I think this is a bug

2000-12-11 Thread Harald Hanche-Olsen

+ 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