Norbert Preining <prein...@logic.at> writes: > - is the current behaviour on purpose, and if yes, why is there > a triggered interest in /usr/share/texmf/fonts?
This happened when the triggers mechanism was added; it used to be that
fontconfig would rebuild the caches when any fonts were installed.
The choice of directories probably reflected an assumption at the time
that TeX would eventually use fontconfig to locate fonts.
> - if my observation is wrong and fonts installed there (/u/s/t/f)
> actually work, could you also please add
> /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts
> to the list?
There used to be a pile of TeX math fonts that were broken -- labeled as
using standard encodings but actually having entirely different glyphs
in place. Is that no longer the case?
> - if fonts are not actually supported, should we (texlive-*) ship
> a /etc/fonts/avail.d/ config file activating the ttf and otf
> fonts we are shipping, i.e., simply adding the paths
> /usr/share/texmf/fonts/{opentype,truetype}
> /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/{opentype,truetype}
> to the search paths?
Having this in the texlive packages while fontconfig continues to have
the paths in .triggers seems wrong; one package or the other should be
responsible for knowing when to rebuild fontconfig caches for those
directories.
> - if we do the last step, how are duplicated fonts handled?
> (we have many fonts that are linked from their original location
> into the texmf trees)
It's not a serious problem, but will cause applications to randomly pick
the texlive paths instead of the original paths.
I'd rather see TeX use fontconfig to locate fonts so that they needn't
be linked here, but I imagine that's a bunch of work.
--
keith.pack...@intel.com
pgp3WlJaYRtlp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
