> So is it okay for ucs to map the Unicode horn characters to \horn O,
> \horn o, \horn U, and \horn u, as it is done currently?
I think so, yes. No time to actually check it.
Werner
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr
> I have no idea what this change was for. And while I have found
> references to \OHORN, \ohorn, \UHORN, and \uhorn in The
> Comprehensive LateX Symbol List, I haven’t found references to
> \horn. So maybe, it is best if I just revert this change.
`\horn' is a virtual accent used in t5enc.def (
> I wonder whether it is sensible to always call the package “ucs”, in
> particular, to rename the directory on CTAN from “unicode” to
> “ucs”. Is this possible and feasible? What do you think?
+1
Werner
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject
> One change that *would* mitigate the problems for other distributors
> (and Debian) is, since freetype 2.2 will already include a linker
> script, to add symbol versions to that linker script. [...]
According to this excellent document (everybody involved into this
discussion should read it!)
4 matches
Mail list logo
