Frank Küster wrote:
>> BaKoMa fonts mentioned in this thread are meanwhile free, but I am
>> not sure.
>
> It seems so, see
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/06/msg00343.html
That looks good indeed. Thanks.
>>> And antp - strangely the fd files are in tetex-extra, but the
>>> afm, tfm and pfb files are in -base. I hope we don't have more
>>> of similar inconsistencies.
>>
>> fd files for antt are in tetex-extra, too. But that is not as bad
>> as the problem with the EC fonts.
>
> Yes, but it means that no user will complain if we move them, because
> they are unusable with tetex-base only, anyway.
They are not easily usable with LaTeX. But one can use any font using
\font\foo=bar.tfm
{\foo uses bar font}
as plain TeX users do it all the time. No idea what context users do. So
while I think it is unlikely that users will complain, I also think it
is impossible to find a new splitting scheme where there is no
possibility for someone to complain.
>> I think I will first have a closer look at what gs it actualy
>> doing. And actually I am not sure what sort of bug one should file
>> here. Or are you speaking about Fontmap vs. Fontmap.GS only? In
>> that case, I think it would be gs-{gpl,esp,afpl} which should get
>> the bug. At least tha is my current understanding which is, of
>> course, subject to change. :-)
>
> Well, I thought of a "I want to configure, but something goes wrong"
> sort of bug where the maintainer first thinks you are a DAU and only
> slowly figures out that their package might not be in ideal shape.
> Had a couple of these filed against tetex...
I think the comment in /etc/gs-gpl/Fontmap are to obvious for that:
%!
% See Fontmap.GS for the syntax of real Fontmap files
(Fontmap.GS) .runlibfile
So something like 'Why isn't Fontmap.GS a configfile?' together with
'Why does Fontmap.GS contain fonts that are not supplied by gsfonts?'
would be more appropriate. But I am not sure yet.
cheerio
ralf
