Am Wed, 1 Feb 2012 17:23:09 +0200 schrieb Khaled Hosny:
> I tried printing the tfm table we pass to the backed, and the checksum > matches the one in the VF file, so this is a bit confusing Well I actually don't know what test is actually done (and why exactly) but some remarks: 1. If I try to convert the binary "pplr7t.vf" to the readable vpl-file I need *two* tfm-files: pplr7t.tfm and pplr8r.tfm. 2. vftovp tells me during the conversion: "Check sum in VF file being replaced by TFM check sum" which probably means that the vpl-file doesn't contain the original checksum(s) of the vf-file. 3. The vpl file contains two checksums: (CHECKSUM O 25136566211) and a checksum in the mapfont entry: (MAPFONT D 0 (FONTNAME pplr8r) (FONTCHECKSUM O 36571141413) (FONTAT R 1.0) (FONTDSIZE R 10.0) ) So which of both is actually checked against which tfm checksum (and gives the mismatch message)? Btw: Two years ago I ran against a checksum mismatch message concerning the width of characters. In this case the culprit was a different calculation method for tfm and vf: http://tug.org/mailman/htdig/pdftex/2009-May/008035.html -- Ulrike Fischer ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
