Am Freitag, 30. August 2019, 22:03:26 CEST schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> Should the following:
>
> \newfontfamily\amharicfont{NotoSansEthiopic}
>
> be instead:
>
> \newfontfamily\amharicfont{Noto Sans Ethiopic}
>
> If I make this change, then the document almost compiles for me. I still
> have a "Missing character" error as follows:
>
> There is no . in font Noto Serif Lao
> Regular/OT:script=lao;l
>
> I'm confused how this test passes for both Günter and Kornel, but not me.
> I am using the noto fonts from the Ubuntu packages. Perhaps you two are
> using newer versions of them from upstream? Could that explain the
> differences we see?
Definitely not newer version here.
> Scott
>
I am confused too.
OTOH, I see the message
LaTeX.cpp (742): Log line: Package fontspec Info: Could not resolve
font "NotoSansEthiopic/I" (it
LaTeX.cpp (742): Log line: (fontspec) probably doesn't
exist).
Don't understand, why xetex compiles without error.
Changing now, as you suggested to 'Noto Sans Ethiopic':
The compilation still passes, but this time in 8.04 secs. (Without the change
the compilation took 67.41 secs! )
LaTeX.cpp (742): Log line: Package fontspec Info: Could not resolve
font "Noto Serif Lao/I" (it probably
LaTeX.cpp (742): Log line: (fontspec) doesn't exist).
$ dpkg -s fonts-noto-hinted | grep Lao
* Noto Sans Lao
* Noto Sans Lao UI
* Noto Serif Lao
So, this font _is_ installed. Still, xetex does not find it.
Checking for other fonts in the log, I see that many fonts are not resolved.
$ egrep 'Could not resolve font'
Testing/Temporary/LastTest.log|sort|uniq|wc
21 306 2138
Kornel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
