Re: Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

Re: Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[George N. White III]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Nigel King wrote:

> > Why do you whish to reinstall all the supplied fonts? Or do you just
> > want to learn how to use texfont?
> I simply wish to use the fonts as most others do (I think) and I am unable
> to because of this bug. The normal context fonts do not exist on Gerben's
> version. Before Gerben's reorganisation they were made by texfont, this now
> does not work because of what I believe to be a simple (I do not understand
> Perl otherwise I would have a go at fixing it) bug in texfont. Maybe I am
> wrong but I am beginning to find this extremely frustrating (7 months). Once
> I realised that somebody was working on texfont 1.8 I had hoped for a fix.

On all the systems I use, (linux, SGI Irix, Win32 with texLive) you have
to run texfont to generate tfm's, vf's and map files for fonts other than
CM.

The last time I tried to run texfont (from the final TeX Live 2003 inst
iso), it tried to use a lower-cased version of the install path, e.g.,
/opt/texline instead of /opt/texLive.

> If no developer/Perl expert has Gerbens version of tetex perhaps I could
> help debug if a version was supplied to me that printed out the full path
> that texfont was looking for files in. The --fontroot option or kpsewhich
> lookup appears to be at fault but I have no debugging facilities.
>
> Any suggestions (other than giving up) gratefully received.

You will have to learn a tiny bit of perl (which is easier than
learning TeX).

-- 
George N. White III  <aa056@chebucto.ns.ca>

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Patrick Gundlach]

Hi,

> The last time I tried to run texfont (from the final TeX Live 2003 inst
> iso), it tried to use a lower-cased version of the install path, e.g.,
> /opt/texline instead of /opt/texLive.

which should be unnecessary on MacOS X (when using hfs as a filesystem)

Patrick
-- 
You are your own rainbow!

Re: Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Nigel King]

>> I simply wish to use the fonts as most others do (I think) and I am unable
>> to because of this bug.
> 
> Nigel,
> 
> did you try 
> 
> \usetypescriptfile[adobekb]
> \setupencoding [default=8r]
> \usetypescript[adobekb][\defaultencoding]
> \usetypescript[palatino][\defaultencoding]
> \setupbodyfont[palatino]
> \starttext
> This is crazy stuff.
> \stoptext
Yes this is the only thing I can do currently, but I thought I had more
control previously.
> 
> ??
> 
>> The normal context fonts do not exist on Gerben's version.
> 
> What are normal ConTeXt fonts?
Say ec-urw-times and the typescripts etc.
> 
> 
>> Maybe I am wrong but I am beginning to find this extremely
>> frustrating (7 months).
> 
> I know how frustrating fonts in TeX can be :-(
> 

-- 
Nigel

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Patrick Gundlach]

Hi,

> Yes this is the only thing I can do currently, but I thought I had more
> control previously.

what kind of control do you miss?

>> What are normal ConTeXt fonts?
> Say ec-urw-times and the typescripts etc.

OK. But adobekb is only the last chain in the typescipt series. So if
you can point out what you are missing, "we" might be able to help
you.

Patrick
-- 
You are your own rainbow!

Re: Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Nigel King]

> Why do you whish to reinstall all the supplied fonts? Or do you just
> want to learn how to use texfont?
I simply wish to use the fonts as most others do (I think) and I am unable
to because of this bug. The normal context fonts do not exist on Gerben's
version. Before Gerben's reorganisation they were made by texfont, this now
does not work because of what I believe to be a simple (I do not understand
Perl otherwise I would have a go at fixing it) bug in texfont. Maybe I am
wrong but I am beginning to find this extremely frustrating (7 months). Once
I realised that somebody was working on texfont 1.8 I had hoped for a fix.

If no developer/Perl expert has Gerbens version of tetex perhaps I could
help debug if a version was supplied to me that printed out the full path
that texfont was looking for files in. The --fontroot option or kpsewhich
lookup appears to be at fault but I have no debugging facilities.

Any suggestions (other than giving up) gratefully received.

TIA
-- 
Nigel

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Patrick Gundlach]

Nigel King <king@dircon.co.uk> writes:


> I simply wish to use the fonts as most others do (I think) and I am unable
> to because of this bug. 

Nigel,

did you try 

\usetypescriptfile[adobekb]
\setupencoding [default=8r]
\usetypescript[adobekb][\defaultencoding]
\usetypescript[palatino][\defaultencoding]
\setupbodyfont[palatino]
\starttext
This is crazy stuff.
\stoptext

??

> The normal context fonts do not exist on Gerben's version.

What are normal ConTeXt fonts?


> Maybe I am wrong but I am beginning to find this extremely
> frustrating (7 months). 

I know how frustrating fonts in TeX can be :-(

Patrick
-- 
You are your own rainbow!

Re: Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[George White]

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Patrick Gundlach wrote:

> [...]
> According to to the statements from Walter Schmidt, a TeX font expert
> (perhaps I should say *the* TeX font expert?) in
> http://tug.daimi.au.dk/archives/tex-fonts/msg01328.html
> 
> \quote{% ....
> Note, however, that embedding of URW's fonts, while using the 
> (PSNFSS) Adobe Base35 metrics, will _not_ lead to any bugs!  
> The character metrics are matching!  Differences in the 
> "character bounding boxes" are irrelevant for the advance widths!  
> The only drawback is, that you cannot access those glyphs that 
> are in the URW fonts, but not in the Adobe fonts.  Indeed, this 
> could be overcome by providing particular metrics and VFs for 
> the URW fonts -- see below. }

Hans has demonstated that even the Adobe fonts don't have the same
metrics.  It should also be noted that in practice, if you don't embed
fonts, you will often get font substitutions in the PS rasterizer (e.g.,
ghostscript defaults will use URW fonts where the file requests a Base35
font, current acrobat reader will use Arial where the file requests
Helvetica, some printers with clone interpreters (many recent HP models)
use "clone" fonts. 

There are several versions of the URW fonts in use now: two ghostscript
versions, and a number of versions with additional glyphs distributed
with linux (and I am told that the software used to create the recent
versions may have tampered with the metrics for glyphs that were not
changed).

If you embed the URW fonts using the original URW names it is clear which
fonts are to be used.  This discourages people from "optimizing" your
files by stripping out the fonts.  For archival EPS figures it makes sense
to go further and replace fonts with outline paths.  In this way the
figures should remain useful even after the fonts are no longer supported
by the available rasterizers. 

--
George White <aa056@chebucto.ns.ca> <gnw3@acm.org>
189 Parklea Dr., Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia  B3Z 2G6

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Patrick Gundlach]

Hi,

George White <aa056@chebucto.ns.ca> writes:

> Hans has demonstated that even the Adobe fonts don't have the same
> metrics.  

Which fonts, which characters and which metrics. Please be more
specific, since it might not even touch the way TeX handles fonts.
I am not sure what is taken to create the tfms, but I think it is the
advance width (WX) of each glyph. Who cares about the bb?

> It should also be noted that in practice, if you don't embed fonts,

I am not discussing about embedding. That is a totally different
topic (not really totally different...)

> you will often get font substitutions in the PS rasterizer (e.g.,
> ghostscript defaults will use URW fonts where the file requests a
> Base35 font, current acrobat reader will use Arial where the file
> requests Helvetica, some printers with clone interpreters (many
> recent HP models) use "clone" fonts.

I agree that fonts should be embedded.

> There are several versions of the URW fonts in use now: two ghostscript
> versions, and a number of versions with additional glyphs distributed
> with linux

right, but there is only one version of the urw fonts shipped with
TeX. And there are only one version of tfms shipped with TeX: the
psnfss ones.

> (and I am told that the software used to create the recent versions
> may have tampered with the metrics for glyphs that were not
> changed).

this is very vague. 

> If you embed the URW fonts using the original URW names it is clear which
> fonts are to be used.  This discourages people from "optimizing" your
> files by stripping out the fonts.  For archival EPS figures it makes sense
> to go further and replace fonts with outline paths.  

Right. Fonts refererenced by eps files can cause serious headaches.

> In this way the figures should remain useful even after the fonts
> are no longer supported by the available rasterizers.

100% agree.

But what does it mean for the font metrics? 

Patrick
-- 
You are your own rainbow!

Re: Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Nigel King]

Dear Patrick,
> What are you trying to achieve?
I use Gerbens distribution of tetex and friends on Mac OSX. In Feb/Mar the
distribution was altered which broke texfont. I had to resort to using
adobekb.tex which works very well. I was hoping however at some point to be
able to use the fonts in a more standard way with everybody else.

-- 
Nigel

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Patrick Gundlach]

Hi Nigel,

>> What are you trying to achieve?

> I use Gerbens distribution of tetex and friends on Mac OSX. In Feb/Mar the
> distribution was altered which broke texfont. I had to resort to using
> adobekb.tex which works very well. I was hoping however at some point to be
> able to use the fonts in a more standard way with everybody else.

So what is wrong with adobekb.tex? It is now included in ConTeXt, so
with \usetypescript[adobekb][someencoding] your psnfss fonts should
work fine.


Patrick
-- 
You are your own rainbow!

Re: Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Hans Hagen]

At 20:13 08/10/2003, you wrote:
>Hi Nigel,
>
> >> What are you trying to achieve?
>
> > I use Gerbens distribution of tetex and friends on Mac OSX. In Feb/Mar the
> > distribution was altered which broke texfont. I had to resort to using
> > adobekb.tex which works very well. I was hoping however at some point to be
> > able to use the fonts in a more standard way with everybody else.
>
>So what is wrong with adobekb.tex? It is now included in ConTeXt, so
>with \usetypescript[adobekb][someencoding] your psnfss fonts should
>work fine.

i can make a default for that but only when i can be absolutely sire that 
the metrics are there that i want there to be -)

Hans  

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Patrick Gundlach]

Hi,


Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> writes:

>>So what is wrong with adobekb.tex? It is now included in ConTeXt, so
>>with \usetypescript[adobekb][someencoding] your psnfss fonts should
>>work fine.
>
> i can make a default for that but only when i can be absolutely sire
> that the metrics are there that i want there to be -)

According to to the statements from Walter Schmidt, a TeX font expert
(perhaps I should say *the* TeX font expert?) in
http://tug.daimi.au.dk/archives/tex-fonts/msg01328.html


\quote{% ....
Note, however, that embedding of URW's fonts, while using the 
(PSNFSS) Adobe Base35 metrics, will _not_ lead to any bugs!  
The character metrics are matching!  Differences in the 
"character bounding boxes" are irrelevant for the advance widths!  
The only drawback is, that you cannot access those glyphs that 
are in the URW fonts, but not in the Adobe fonts.  Indeed, this 
could be overcome by providing particular metrics and VFs for 
the URW fonts -- see below. }


Patrick
-- 
You are your own rainbow!

Re: Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Hans Hagen]

At 11:00 09/10/2003, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>
>Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl> writes:
>
> >>So what is wrong with adobekb.tex? It is now included in ConTeXt, so
> >>with \usetypescript[adobekb][someencoding] your psnfss fonts should
> >>work fine.
> >
> > i can make a default for that but only when i can be absolutely sire
> > that the metrics are there that i want there to be -)
>
>According to to the statements from Walter Schmidt, a TeX font expert
>(perhaps I should say *the* TeX font expert?) in
>http://tug.daimi.au.dk/archives/tex-fonts/msg01328.html
>
>
>\quote{% ....
>Note, however, that embedding of URW's fonts, while using the
>(PSNFSS) Adobe Base35 metrics, will _not_ lead to any bugs!
>The character metrics are matching!  Differences in the
>"character bounding boxes" are irrelevant for the advance widths!
>The only drawback is, that you cannot access those glyphs that
>are in the URW fonts, but not in the Adobe fonts.  Indeed, this
>could be overcome by providing particular metrics and VFs for
>the URW fonts -- see below. }

hm, there are more font experts (nelson b, boguslaw j, adam t, tom k, some 
people on this list as well, to mention a few), here is what Nelson Beebe 
says about this topic in a different thread ..


 > > Walter confirms what I have assumed: we can use the "Adobe" metrics from
 > > the PSNFSS bundle with the URW fonts.

I have serious reservations about this.

While as far as I know, there has been only one release of URW fonts,
and thus only one pair of (.pf[ab],.afm) files for each typeface, with
Adobe fonts, over the last 19 years, there have been silent changes
made to at least AFM files for many fonts, including Times-Roman.

This makes me suspect that the base-14 or base-35 fonts embedded in
tens of millions of laser printers with Adobe PostScript
implementations may in fact not be identical, even though they share
common font names.

Of course, the changes are usually pretty small, and few people would
ever notice.  However, precise character positioning demands knowledge
of metrics, and if a TeX job uses metrics which differ from those
embedded with a font in a printer, and uses the resident fonts, rather
than downloading them, then output will certainly not be what TeX (and
the user) intended.  That is one reason why I've never been entirely
happy with fontless PostScript and PDF files, and why I was
exceedingly unhappy with the change in Adobe Illustrator last year
that completely ignores embedded fonts, and uses only installed fonts.

The program MIME-attached below can be used to compare AFM files, and
I have just done so with the
texlive7/texmf/fonts/afm/{adobe,urw}/times/*.afm files.

The first thing to note is that the URW fonts contain many more
glyphs: 316 for Times-Roman compared to Adobe's 228.  A TeX file that
used any of the additional URW glyphs would print incorrectly with
Adobe's Times-Roman.

The second thing is that the bounding boxes can be a bit different,
and sometimes very different, even when the widths are identical:

         % awk -f afmdiff.awk /tmp/afm/adobe/times/ptmr8a.afm 
/tmp/afm/urw/times/utmr8a.afm
         Comparison of AFM metrics in files: 
/tmp/afm/adobe/times/ptmr8a.afm /tmp/afm/urw/times/utmr8a.afm
         Font names: Times-Roman NimbusRomNo9L-Regu
         ...
         WX width differences:

         Bounding box width differences:
         dagger            -1       dieresis          -1       dotaccent 
      -1
         exclam             1       exclamdown         1       Idieresis 
      -1
         idieresis         39       three             -1 
threesuperior     -1

         Bounding box height differences:
         Adieresis          1       adieresis          1       aring 
     -10
         Aring            -17       asciitilde         6       dieresis 
       1
         dotaccent          1       Edieresis          1       edieresis 
       1
         exclamdown        -2       greater           -4       Idieresis 
       1
         idieresis          1       less              -4       Odieresis 
       1
         odieresis          1       plusminus        -62       q 
      -1
         questiondown      -2       s                  1       Udieresis 
       1
         udieresis          1       Ydieresis          1       ydieresis 
       1

TeX uses more than just the bare width, so I suspect that we can
readily demonstrate different typesetting with these two
purportedly-compatible Times-Roman fonts from URL and Adobe.  As a
simple experiment, I created two DVI files with "tex testfont", like
this:

         % tex testfont
         This is TeX, Version 3.1415 (C version 6.1)
         (/usr/local/lib/tex/inputs/testfont.tex
         Name of the font to test = ptmr8r
         Now type a test command (\help for help):)
         *\table

         *\bye
         [1]
         Output written on testfont.dvi (1 page, 10632 bytes).
         Transcript written on testfont.log.
         % mv testfont.dvi testfont-ptmr8r.dvi

and similarly for utmr8r.  I then ran dv2dt on both, and compared the
output:

         % dv2dt < testfont-utmr8r.dvi > testfont-utmr8r.dt
         % dv2dt < testfont-ptmr8r.dvi > testfont-ptmr8r.dt
         % diff testfont-utmr8r.dt testfont-ptmr8r.dt
         19c19
         < (utmr8r)
         ---
         > (ptmr8r)
         33,34c33,34
         < d3 1518460
         < d3 1911676
         ---
         > d3 1512892
         > d3 1906108
         191c191
         < fd1 50 24364160751 655360 655360 0 6 'utmr8r'
         ---
         > fd1 50 4767720433 655360 655360 0 6 'ptmr8r'
         291c291
         < d3 721220
         ---
         > d3 715652
         306c306
         < sr 1016132 26214
         ---
         > sr 1010564 26214
         ... many more ...


Clearly, the DVI files differ somewhat.

I did similar AFM comparison experiments with the 3 other times fonts
in TeXLive 7:

         % awk -f afmdiff.awk /tmp/afm/adobe/times/ptmri8a.afm 
/tmp/afm/urw/times/utmri8a.afm
         % awk -f afmdiff.awk /tmp/afm/adobe/times/ptmbi8a.afm 
/tmp/afm/urw/times/utmbi8a.afm
         % awk -f afmdiff.awk /tmp/afm/adobe/times/ptmb8a.afm 
/tmp/afm/urw/times/utmb8a.afm

All had identical character widths, but many differences in bounding
boxes.

Thus, I believe that it would be wrong to claim that the URW fonts are
true drop-in replacements for the Adobe fonts, and of course there
will be minor shape differences as well, some of which may be visible
to sharp-eyed readers, at least in heading-size characters.

As an additional experiment, I ran the locate command on our large
Unix installation, and found 64 instances of Times-Roman.afm.  MD5
checksums of these files showed that there are only 7 different ones,
so I ran the afmdiff.awk program on those 7.  While there were no
differences reported in character widths, there were many differences
in bounding boxes and even in glyph counts (210, 228, and 315,
depending on the file):

The copyright statements look like this:

Comment Copyright (c) 1984 Adobe Systems Incorporated.  All Rights Reserved.
Comment Copyright (c) 1984 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.
Comment Copyright (c) 1985, 1987, 1989 Adobe Systems Incorporated.  All 
rights reserved.
Comment Copyright (c) 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990 Adobe Systems 
Incorporated.  All Rights Reserved.
Comment Copyright (c) 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1997 Adobe Systems 
Incorporated.  All Rights Reserved.
Notice Copyright (c) 1985, 1987, 1989 Adobe Systems Incorporated.  All 
rights reserved.Times is a trademark of Linotype AG and/or its subsidiaries.
Notice Copyright (c) 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990 Adobe Systems 
Incorporated.  All Rights Reserved.Times is a trademark of Linotype AG 
and/or its subsidiaries.
Notice Copyright (c) 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1997 Adobe Systems 
Incorporated.  All Rights Reserved.Times is a trademark of Linotype-Hell AG 
and/or its subsidiaries.

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Patrick Gundlach]

Hi,


> hm, there are more font experts (nelson b, boguslaw j, adam t, tom k,
> some people on this list as well, to mention a few), 

You are right, I should restrict my statement to "font expert with
respect to the URW/Adobe base14/35 thing" (but not limited to...)

> here is what Nelson Beebe says about this topic in a different
> thread ..

Well, it is the same thread, and I quoted Walters *answer* to Nelson
Beebe. (But I did not have a copy of Nelson's mail yet). 


Patrick
-- 
You are your own rainbow!

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Nigel King]

All,
I hadn't expected to create such a confusion so I will try to restate my
problem.

On MacOSX Gerben has provided a restructured version of tetex where the
locations of some files have changed. I am not sure of the detailed reasons
for this but it certainly much easier to keep up to date. For instance he
even provides an updater for ConTeXt to beta or standard using a single
click (I only just found that! Thanks Gerben).

Now the line 
 texfont --en=8r --ve=urw --co=courier --so=auto
Should work but instead gives

 TeXFont 1.8 - ConTeXt / PRAGMA ADE 2000-2003

    processing aborted : unknown subpath ../fonts/afm/urw/courier

The subpath exists but maybe at a different root
/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/courier
thus I presume that --fontroot should be invoked especially since the help
gives me 
  --fontroot=path : texmf font root (default:
/usr/local/tetex/share/texmf.local)
So I try 
texfont --en=8r --ve=urw --co=courier --so=auto
--fontroot=/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/
on one line of course

    processing aborted : unknown subpath ../fonts/afm/urw/courier
is the result.

The apparent error is that the --fontroot option doesn't work. Hopefully
that is all I wanted fixed. Texfont has been upgraded with many new options
but this 'bug' remains.

TIA
-- 
Nigel

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Patrick Gundlach]

Nigel King <king@dircon.co.uk> writes:

Hi,

> I hadn't expected to create such a confusion so I will try to restate my
> problem.

Well, it is not the first time Hans and I discuss about this issue... 

Sorry, I don't use texfont and I don't use Gerbens iinstaller TeX.
(TeXlive). I can't help you with this.

Why do you whish to reinstall all the supplied fonts? Or do you just
want to learn how to use texfont?

Patrick
-- 
You are your own rainbow!

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Nigel King]

Hi,
I am posting this message I posted to the 'OS X TeX' group earlier this year
relating to the same issue that Mathew is raising. I had no luck then but am
hoping for more success now there are two of us.

Hans says
'this is under discussion now with thomas/staszek/etc: has to do with urw
metrics not being in tetex by default (they are on tex live)'

However, Gerben's i-Installer installs them here in a different location
than normal. (I think these are the only pair of files that are necessary
for utmb8a to work.)

/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/times/utmb8a.afm
/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/type1/urw/times/utmb8a.pfb

I believe that the problem is merely with texroot as I state below. Further
evidence for this is that it nearly all worked before Gerben rearranged the
directories.

Earlier message.......
Hi,
Some of my previous font problems here were due to not enabling all of the
font map file in the final configuration of the install. I think someone
else had the same problem. Adobekb.tex is now helping me well, however I am
finding it necessary still to run with the Context font system for some
documents for the moment, and for this texfont has to run to create the
various font files.

Running the single command
texfont --en=8r --ve=urw --co=courier --so=auto
Should work but returns
    processing aborted : unknown tex root  /sw/share/texmf/

Clearly texroot is set incorrectly so forcing that
texfont --en=8r --ve=urw --co=courier --so=auto
--fontroot=/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/
Should work but returns
    processing aborted : unknown subpath ../fonts/afm/urw/courier

And yet 
/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/courier/ucrb8a.afm
Exists
This process worked in the v2 version of the i-installer indeed still works
when reinstalled.

I am presuming that the new problem is because of the texmf.tetex that the
texfont perl script is now not able to understand. Perl is beyond my small
brain!

Any help much appreciated
-- 
Nigel

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Gerben Wierda]

On Wednesday, Aug 6, 2003, at 22:21 Europe/Amsterdam, Nigel King wrote:

> Hi,
> I am posting this message I posted to the 'OS X TeX' group earlier 
> this year
> relating to the same issue that Mathew is raising. I had no luck then 
> but am
> hoping for more success now there are two of us.
>
> Hans says
> 'this is under discussion now with thomas/staszek/etc: has to do with 
> urw
> metrics not being in tetex by default (they are on tex live)'
>
> However, Gerben's i-Installer installs them here in a different 
> location
> than normal. (I think these are the only pair of files that are 
> necessary
> for utmb8a to work.)
>
> /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/times/utmb8a.afm
> /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/type1/urw/times/utmb8a.pfb
>
> I believe that the problem is merely with texroot as I state below. 
> Further
> evidence for this is that it nearly all worked before Gerben 
> rearranged the
> directories.

Yes, this could be. If texexec or any ConTeXt tool does not use 
texmf.cnf values but has hardcoded ideas about where to find stuff 
(texmf), then the rearranging of the texmf directories could have an 
influence. Hans can probably say if this is possibly the case. After 
all, the rearranging had no ill effects whatsoever on TeX or LaTeX, 
because where files are is governed by texmf.cnf and that was adapted 
as well to reflect the changed situation. If there is hardcoded stuff 
in texexec that is playing a role (I am guessing here), making it 
dynamic by calls to kpsewhich is a good solution.

For the rest, the content of texmf.tetex is created by Thomas Esser, 
not me. And there you will find not a complete set of URW but an Adobe 
set and thatis what the discussion is also about. hans is right in 
stating that.

> Earlier message.......
> Hi,
> Some of my previous font problems here were due to not enabling all of 
> the
> font map file in the final configuration of the install. I think 
> someone
> else had the same problem. Adobekb.tex is now helping me well, however 
> I am
> finding it necessary still to run with the Context font system for some
> documents for the moment, and for this texfont has to run to create the
> various font files.
>
> Running the single command
> texfont --en=8r --ve=urw --co=courier --so=auto
> Should work but returns
>     processing aborted : unknown tex root  /sw/share/texmf/

Well, for one thing, this seems to indicate that you also are using a 
Fink-installed TeX and that may also complicate matters. Fink forces 
itself at the beginning of your PATH and will therefore be found before 
my distribution whjen called from the command line.

> Clearly texroot is set incorrectly so forcing that
> texfont --en=8r --ve=urw --co=courier --so=auto
> --fontroot=/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/
> Should work but returns
>     processing aborted : unknown subpath ../fonts/afm/urw/courier

If you are calling Fink's TeX and using my texmf trees, it is not clear 
that this would work.

> And yet
> /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/courier/ucrb8a.afm
> Exists
> This process worked in the v2 version of the i-installer indeed still 
> works
> when reinstalled.

v2 has nothing to do with TeX but only with the i-Installer major 
release which has been around for, what, 3/4 of a year or so?

> I am presuming that the new problem is because of the texmf.tetex that 
> the
> texfont perl script is now not able to understand. Perl is beyond my 
> small
> brain!

If that is the case, texfont is a problem because it hard codes 
locations where texmf.cnf is the source for locations and kpsewhich is 
the way to find out about them.

G
--
"To be or not to be, that is the question" -- Parmenides

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Nigel King]

Gerben,
Apologies for posting any confusion.

1. The only package fink in use is the tetex placeholder system-tetex I did
previously have fink tetex but now only have i-Installer tetex almost
latest.

2. The texroot report no longer occurs presumably I have cleaned up my
installation further. The command now aborts simply with the subpath
message.

texfont --en=8r --ve=urw --co=courier --so=auto

 TeXFont 1.5 - ConTeXt / PRAGMA ADE 2000-2001 (STILL BETA)

    processing aborted : unknown subpath ../fonts/afm/urw/courier

                --help : show some more info

Locate gives the following list suggesting that texfont is not looking at
/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex for fonts

locate /fonts/afm/urw/courier
/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/courier
/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/courier/ucrb8a.afm
/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/courier/ucrbo8a.afm
/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/courier/ucrr8a.afm
/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/courier/ucrro8a.afm

Texfont help suggest that I should use the following command but the same
unknown subpath is returned.
texfont --en=8r --ve=urw --fontroot=/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex
--co=courier --so=auto

In the file
/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/context/config/texexec.ini
There is a line which seems very odd and PC like
set  TeXFontsPath       to  l:/tex/texmf;l:/tex/texmf-local;

I have commented out this line and set TeXFontsPath to other more likely
values like texmf, texmf.tetex all do not effect the unknown subpath.

I'm now beyond the end of my knowledge.
-- 
Nigel

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[darnold]

I am out of my depth here, because you are using linux. But here goes a shot.

I think there is a file, texmf.cnf, where you can set stuff, one thing
being the order in which tex searches paths. I think you want to set it to
the current directory, then a local tex directory (like texmf-local), then
the normal tex tree. I believe you'll find this mentioned both in the
manual for Fonts in Context and the Texfont manual.

It's best to make personal adaptions in the tree texmf-local, as these
changes won't get overwritten when you install new releases of tex.

Make sure your directories are writable? Could that be the problem you are
experiencing in your description?

Also, instead of

texfont --en=8r --ve=urw --co=courier --so=auto

try being more specific, say with

texfont --en=8r --ve=urw --co=courier --fontroot=/tex/texmf-local --so=
(put the absolute path to your source files here) --makepath --install

I am just guessing at things here. I probably won't be of much help
because I have a windows installation.

Good luck.

> Gerben,
> Apologies for posting any confusion.
>
> 1. The only package fink in use is the tetex placeholder system-tetex I
> did previously have fink tetex but now only have i-Installer tetex
> almost latest.
>
> 2. The texroot report no longer occurs presumably I have cleaned up my
> installation further. The command now aborts simply with the subpath
> message.
>
> texfont --en=8r --ve=urw --co=courier --fontroot=/tex/texmf-local --so=auto

>
>  TeXFont 1.5 - ConTeXt / PRAGMA ADE 2000-2001 (STILL BETA)
>
>     processing aborted : unknown subpath ../fonts/afm/urw/courier
>
>                 --help : show some more info
>
> Locate gives the following list suggesting that texfont is not looking
> at /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex for fonts
>
> locate /fonts/afm/urw/courier
> /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/courier
> /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/courier/ucrb8a.afm
> /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/courier/ucrbo8a.afm
> /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/courier/ucrr8a.afm
> /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/fonts/afm/urw/courier/ucrro8a.afm
>
> Texfont help suggest that I should use the following command but the
> same unknown subpath is returned.
> texfont --en=8r --ve=urw --fontroot=/usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex
> --co=courier --so=auto
>
> In the file
> /usr/local/teTeX/share/texmf.tetex/context/config/texexec.ini
> There is a line which seems very odd and PC like
> set  TeXFontsPath       to  l:/tex/texmf;l:/tex/texmf-local;
>
> I have commented out this line and set TeXFontsPath to other more likely
> values like texmf, texmf.tetex all do not effect the unknown subpath.
>
> I'm now beyond the end of my knowledge.
> --
> Nigel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ntg-context mailing list
> ntg-context@ntg.nl
> http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Hans Hagen]

At 17:31 07/08/2003 -0700, you wrote:

>It's best to make personal adaptions in the tree texmf-local, as these
>changes won't get overwritten when you install new releases of tex.

here i use a font tree "tex/texmf-fonts"

Hans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Hans Hagen]

At 00:05 07/08/2003 +0200, Gerben Wierda wrote:

>Yes, this could be. If texexec or any ConTeXt tool does not use texmf.cnf 
>values but has hardcoded ideas about where to find stuff (texmf), then the 
>rearranging of the texmf directories could have an influence. Hans can 
>probably say if this is possibly the case. After all, the rearranging had 
>no ill effects whatsoever on TeX or LaTeX, because where files are is 
>governed by texmf.cnf and that was adapted as well to reflect the changed 
>situation. If there is hardcoded stuff in texexec that is playing a role 
>(I am guessing here), making it dynamic by calls to kpsewhich is a good 
>solution.
>
>For the rest, the content of texmf.tetex is created by Thomas Esser, not 
>me. And there you will find not a complete set of URW but an Adobe set and 
>thatis what the discussion is also about. hans is right in stating that.

context can happily work in the texmf tree and does depemnd on its own 
trees; with regards to texfont:

- it will install in either texmf-fonts or texmf-local, depending on what 
is present; the reason for having texmf-fonts is that we need a place for 
commercial fonts (and texmf-local is for my updates, local stuff etc)

- texfonts uses prefixed names (texnansi-* and alike) for several reasons: 
(1) when i buy a font, i wan tto copy the fonts to some temp path, call 
texfont, and have the job done; i don't want to mess around with 8 char 
names that may conflict is i do something wrong;

- another reason for texfonts naming sheme of 'third party fonts' is that 
when one starts slanting fonts (and alike) the kb naming sheme does not 
keep track of what slant is used, which in principle will lead to conflicts 
if one has multiple instances (wherever they may come from)

- for the same reason i keep separate map files for those third part 
collections

- with regards to the fonts on tex live the confusion comes from the mix of 
adobe names and urw type ones. So far whatever i made default, failed on 
someones system, which is why we have now type-akb for the mixed users

- also: context font mechanism is set up in a way that makes it possible to 
combine fonts with minimal calls (once understood -), supporting relative 
scaling and alike; i don't want user sto be dependent on one (few) persons 
to define / install / use fonts.

>If that is the case, texfont is a problem because it hard codes locations 
>where texmf.cnf is the source for locations and kpsewhich is the way to 
>find out about them.

afaik it uses kpsewhich an-r env vars and one can set things on the command 
line as well; there is not so much hard coded in there -)

Hans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Nigel King]

Dear Gerben or Hans,
I have been away on holiday. So I have lost the result of this thread. Have
you or Hans solved this problem. If so, do I need to upgrade i-tetex or
ConTeXt or both. I would really like to solve this problem and get back to
standard ConTeXt fonts.

TIA

> From: Hans Hagen <pragma@wxs.nl>
> At 00:05 07/08/2003 +0200, Gerben Wierda wrote:
> 
>> Yes, this could be. If texexec or any ConTeXt tool does not use texmf.cnf
>> values but has hardcoded ideas about where to find stuff (texmf), then the
>> rearranging of the texmf directories could have an influence. Hans can
>> probably say if this is possibly the case. After all, the rearranging had
>> no ill effects whatsoever on TeX or LaTeX, because where files are is
>> governed by texmf.cnf and that was adapted as well to reflect the changed
>> situation. If there is hardcoded stuff in texexec that is playing a role
>> (I am guessing here), making it dynamic by calls to kpsewhich is a good
>> solution.
>> 
>> For the rest, the content of texmf.tetex is created by Thomas Esser, not
>> me. And there you will find not a complete set of URW but an Adobe set and
>> thatis what the discussion is also about. hans is right in stating that.
> 
> context can happily work in the texmf tree and does depemnd on its own
> trees; with regards to texfont:
> 
> - it will install in either texmf-fonts or texmf-local, depending on what
> is present; the reason for having texmf-fonts is that we need a place for
> commercial fonts (and texmf-local is for my updates, local stuff etc)
> 
> - texfonts uses prefixed names (texnansi-* and alike) for several reasons:
> (1) when i buy a font, i wan tto copy the fonts to some temp path, call
> texfont, and have the job done; i don't want to mess around with 8 char
> names that may conflict is i do something wrong;
> 
> - another reason for texfonts naming sheme of 'third party fonts' is that
> when one starts slanting fonts (and alike) the kb naming sheme does not
> keep track of what slant is used, which in principle will lead to conflicts
> if one has multiple instances (wherever they may come from)
> 
> - for the same reason i keep separate map files for those third part
> collections
> 
> - with regards to the fonts on tex live the confusion comes from the mix of
> adobe names and urw type ones. So far whatever i made default, failed on
> someones system, which is why we have now type-akb for the mixed users
> 
> - also: context font mechanism is set up in a way that makes it possible to
> combine fonts with minimal calls (once understood -), supporting relative
> scaling and alike; i don't want user sto be dependent on one (few) persons
> to define / install / use fonts.
> 
>> If that is the case, texfont is a problem because it hard codes locations
>> where texmf.cnf is the source for locations and kpsewhich is the way to
>> find out about them.
> 
> afaik it uses kpsewhich an-r env vars and one can set things on the command
> line as well; there is not so much hard coded in there -)
> 
> Hans

-- 
Nigel

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Patrick Gundlach]

Nigel King <king@dircon.co.uk> writes:

> I have been away on holiday. So I have lost the result of this thread. Have
> you or Hans solved this problem. If so, do I need to upgrade i-tetex or
> ConTeXt or both. I would really like to solve this problem and get back to
> standard ConTeXt fonts.

What are you trying to achieve?

Patrick
-- 
You are your own rainbow!

texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Matthew Huggett]

Hi:

When I run texfont as follows:
    texfont --en=texnansi --fontroot=/usr/share/texmf/fonts 
/usr/share/context/data/type-tmf.dat

texfont reports  "unknown subpath ../fonts/afm/urw/[font name]" for each 
font listed in type-tmf.dat.  Where should the fonts be found?

Thanks,

Matt  

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[David Arnold]

Matt,

I just read somewhere that this batch compile won't work unless the source
and destination are the same. 

Aha! I found where I read this:

http://www.pragma-ade.com:8080/context/Members/guravage/myways/TexfontExamin
ed.pdf



At 02:37 PM 8/3/03 +0900, you wrote:
>Hi:
>
>When I run texfont as follows:
>    texfont --en=texnansi --fontroot=/usr/share/texmf/fonts 
>/usr/share/context/data/type-tmf.dat
>
>texfont reports  "unknown subpath ../fonts/afm/urw/[font name]" for each 
>font listed in type-tmf.dat.  Where should the fonts be found?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Matt  
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ntg-context mailing list
>ntg-context@ntg.nl
>http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
>
>

Re: texfont and type-tmf.dat

[Hans Hagen]

At 14:37 03/08/2003 +0900, Matthew Huggett wrote:
>Hi:
>
>When I run texfont as follows:
>    texfont --en=texnansi --fontroot=/usr/share/texmf/fonts 
> /usr/share/context/data/type-tmf.dat
>
>texfont reports  "unknown subpath ../fonts/afm/urw/[font name]" for each 
>font listed in type-tmf.dat.  Where should the fonts be found?

this is under discussion now with thomas/staszek/etc: has to do with urw 
metrics not being in tetex by default (they are on tex live)

Hans
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE | pragma@wxs.nl
                       Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands
  tel: +31 (0)38 477 53 69 | fax: +31 (0)38 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        information: http://www.pragma-ade.com/roadmap.pdf
                     documentation: http://www.pragma-ade.com/showcase.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------