[dev-context] kpathsea and XeTeX

Taco Hoekwater taco at elvenkind.com
Fri Oct 19 13:41:42 CEST 2007


Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> On 10/19/07, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
>> Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>> Taco:
>>>> you should check the value of the "mktextfm" feature. It seems to be
>>>> on in gwTeX.
>>> Thanks a lot for the pointer. That was an enormous speedup :) But that
>>> should probably not be the ultimate solution?
>> There is no other way to get rid of them. It is impossible to
>> control the execution of those scripts (mktextfm, mktexmf, mktexfmt,
>> mktexpk) from C code without patching kpathsea.
> 
> Do you mean that kpathsea should support something like "please tell
> me if that font is available, but do not try to run mktex... even if
> that one is on by default"?

Something like that, yes.

> In any case, I've set that option to zero and my system is slightly
> broken for some unknown reason today, but I will get over it somehow
> :)
> 
>> I believe all of those scripts should be off on a modern installation.
> 
> I would agree, but as long as there are metafont fonts residing on a
> system and people are using them ...
> If I use \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}, I still get bitmap fonts. *That*
> one should be changed. Rendering of such documents on Mac's screen is
> almost unreadable.

The one follows from the other.  mktextfm only makes sense in an
environment that uses bitmap fonts.

> (I even get bitmap integers inside math with ConTeXt, but I didn't
> manage to figure out yet whose fault that is.)
> 
> How is it possible that MikTeX has managed to solve that issue, but
> TeX Live not? (Or perhaps I should check it once more on some windows
> machine.)

You are not really using "texlive2007". Your installation is "gwTeX,
based on texlive". I suspect there may be a difference in setup
settings.

> Hans first changed it when I "compalined" that XeTeX should not load
> ec-whatever and texnansi-whatever map files any more. It then turned
> out that metapost still needs them, so it would still be necessary to
> add an additional font (texnansi-lmtt10, I guess - probably because
> it's "almost-ascii-compatible"), but I don't know if that happened.

Apparently not.

Best wishes,
Taco


More information about the dev-context mailing list