elaexuo...@wilsonb.com writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> wrote: >> >> elaexuo...@wilsonb.com writes: >> >> > Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> wrote: >> >> This is a problem with the modular TeX Live packages. The pk files are >> >> bitmap fonts. I found that adding texlive-cm-super to the union helps >> >> in that the bitmap variants of the CM fonts will not be generated any >> >> more. More font packages may be needed in the union to prevent TeX from >> >> falling back to bitmap fonts in other cases. >> >> >> >> In any case, that’s unrelated to Jelle’s patch, which looks fine to me. >> > >> > Thank you, Ricardo, for looking into this. >> > >> > I have lost signficant amounts of hair trying to find a solution. Adding >> > texlive-cm-super doesn't help for the document I trying to typeset. In >> > fact, I >> > even grabbed all texlive packages with fonts and threw them in the >> > texlive-union to no effect. No matter what, pdflatex bails when trying to >> > find >> > the font to set $~$. >> > >> > The only way I have gotten it to typeset under a texlive-union so far is by >> > munging texlive-amsfonts as Jelle mentioned. >> >> I have since added texlive-amsfonts/fixed, which installs all the files >> it is supposed to (according do the tlpdb). I’ve also since fixed font >> search. >> >> Can this issue be closed? > > Are we sure this is fixed? The issue where you added texlive-amsfonts/fixed is > still seeing the original missing fonts error for eufm10: > > https://issues.guix.gnu.org/53339#3-lineno36 At least the question “is texlive-amsfonts broken” is definitively answered. This was what this issue was about, no? I’d rather keep the other issue separate. -- Ricardo