Also, removing the entry is not necessary. Nothing breaks if the extra map does not exist. It would actually be a bad idea to remove the entry because Type 42 fonts generated by the user using otftotfm would become unusable after the tool is uninstalled, even thought the tool is not required to use the fonts it generated. Given this, I'll submit a config patch for texlive-texmf-dvips. But first I need someone to review the lcdf-typetools package because it has been orphaned for a while, so it's not in Fedora anymore. I have not yet put up the patched version, although I'm using it, because of this config issue. The tool is useful enough for installing fonts for TeX as it is. Well, it is actually required to fix a bug I filed against texlive-context... On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > No, it's actually a proper system-wide config file. I've edited my > local config.ps successfully to enable Type 42 fonts by adding an > additional map. Now I want to be able to do that system-wide when > lcdf-typetools is installed. > > I've written a patch for otftotfm (and sent it upstream) that allows > installation of Type 42 fonts from TrueType fonts. Type 42 fonts can > be embedded in PostScript files, so PK fonts generation is no longer > required when TT fonts are used with dvips. This lets Fedora users > embed fonts like Liberation as outlines in TeX/dvips PostScript > output. There's been a discussion on the font list about this a while > back, or more precisely about the lack of such an automated tool. > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 07:48:30AM +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: >>> I need to add line to /usr/share/texmf/dvips/config/config.ps to get >>> some extra functionality enabled for lcdf-typetools, namely Type 42 >>> support. The config.ps file is properly marked as a config file in >>> texlive-texmf-dvips. Is there some infrastructure that's normally used >>> to hack config files or should I just echo "..." >> config.ps? >> >> I think that it is improperly marked as %config. It should not be >> touched upon by the user, and should be solely under the upstream or >> packagers control. It should be, in my opinion, marked as >> %ghost %verify(not size mtime md5) >> >> That being said you are entitled to change that file as a packager >> in a post-install script, however >> * you should make sure that the change is reverted if your package is >> removed. >> * you should be very very careful, since this kind of change can >> easily mess the system. It should be safe to be applied whatever >> the order of package install (as constrained by the Requires), >> and it should not output anything except in very rare cases. >> >> Also if the change can be left in the file, it would even be better >> to patch it in telive-texmf. >> >> -- >> Pat >> >> -- >> Fedora-packaging mailing list >> Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging >> >> > -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
