[XeTeX] autoconf macros not found
Greetings, I am having trouble building xetex from source. Today I downloaded the source tree from http://git.code.sf.net/p/xetex/code and in the source tree I ran the command ./build.sh System is Ubuntu Precise amd64 with autoconf 2.68 running in a virtual machine on Windows 7 Professional. Output is Your make is a GNU-make; I will use that checking for pkg-config... /usr/bin/pkg-config checking for autoreconf... /usr/bin/autoreconf running autoreconf --force --install --verbose autoreconf: Entering directory `.' autoreconf: configure.ac: not using Gettext autoreconf: running: aclocal --force autoreconf: configure.ac: tracing autoreconf: configure.ac: adding subdirectory auxdir/auxsub to autoreconf autoreconf: Entering directory `auxdir/auxsub' autoreconf: configure.ac: creating directory ../../build-aux autoreconf: configure.ac: not using Libtool autoreconf: running: /usr/bin/autoconf --force autoreconf: configure.ac: not using Autoheader autoreconf: running: automake --add-missing --copy --force-missing configure.ac:14: installing `../../build-aux/install-sh' configure.ac:14: installing `../../build-aux/missing' autoreconf: Leaving directory `auxdir/auxsub' autoreconf: configure.ac: adding subdirectory libs to autoreconf autoreconf: Entering directory `libs' configure.ac:14: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIRS If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow. See the Autoconf documentation. autoreconf: /usr/bin/autoconf failed with exit status: 1 ./build.sh: line 210: ../source/configure: No such file or directory strip: 'build/texk/web2c/xetex': No such file ls: cannot access build/texk/web2c/xetex: No such file or directory In the files 1. source/configure.ac 2. source/libs/configure.ac 3. source/utils/configure.ac 4. source/texk/configure.ac I changed AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIRS to AC_CONFIG_MACRO_DIR. The build made further progress. Now the end of the output says autoreconf: Entering directory `texk' autoreconf: Leaving directory `texk' configure.ac:124: error: possibly undefined macro: m4_sinclude If this token and others are legitimate, please use m4_pattern_allow. See the Autoconf documentation. autoreconf: /usr/bin/autoconf failed with exit status: 1 ../source/configure: 1979: ./configure.lineno: Syntax error: word unexpected (expecting ")") strip: 'build/texk/web2c/xetex': No such file ls: cannot access build/texk/web2c/xetex: No such file or directory ...but I am not sure what to change next. Any suggestions are appreciated. Thanks, Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /devos.bo...@gmail.com/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] Incorrect rendering of Vedic Sanskrit accents
On 2015-05-22 10:49, maxwell wrote: > On 2015-05-22 10:14, David M. Jones wrote: >> ... >> P.S. There's actually a third class of bug that is clearly visible in >> the table at the top of my document, but which I didn't mention >> explicitly: XeTeX won't typeset one of the Devanagari combining >> characters in isolation without adding a prothetic dotted circle >> (U+25CC). > > I was waiting for someone who knows more about this than I do to > answer, but I'll display my ignorance. > > Afaik that's not a bug, that's the way combining characters are > *supposed* to render when they don't have any character to combine > with. There's a way to prevent that; I _think_ it's to precede the > combining character by a non-breaking space (U+00A0). But I haven't > tried that. Some minority languages (that is, not the dominate language using a particular script) often use combining marks in ways not envisioned in order to extend the script to cover all the sounds in the minority language. So for those minority languages, having a dotted circle show up is not very helpful. Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /devos.bo...@gmail.com/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] New feature planned for xetex
On 2016-02-19 03:31, Jonathan Kew wrote: > Note that the new features in xetex do not in any way enforce a > particular way of writing (for Urdu or anything else). The inter-word > spacing is primarily under the control of the font designer; > \XeTeXinterwordspaceshaping merely makes it possible for xetex to more > accurately follow what the font designer specified. IIRC, the Wikipedia feature Download as PDF uses some sort of TeX engine to create the PDFs. For such a usage (assuming XeTeX, and where the author of the macros used does not know the content of the text being typeset) would setting \XeTeXinterwordspaceshaping = 2 be recommended? If the font does not take advantage of \XeTeXinterwordspaceshaping, would then setting \XeTeXinterwordspaceshaping have no effect? That is, could \XeTeXinterwordspaceshaping be enabled all the time, rather than being enabled only if the font would make use of that setting? Thanks, Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /devos.bo...@gmail.com/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] XeTeX with new Graphite engine?
On 2016-04-19 16:21, Lorna Evans wrote: > I was thinking I had seen a message that Jonathan had updated XeTeX to > use the newest Graphite engine and that someone else had built a > Windows binary. I can't find that anywhere. Did I imagine this or can > someone tell me where to find it? I think http://w32tex.org/ should have what you need. Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /devos.bo...@gmail.com/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
[XeTeX] where to put woff files
Greetings, I have seen reports of problems on XeTeX on Ubuntu not handling woff files, both told to me in person and also on the web [1]. I am now taking over the Debian/Ubuntu packaging for some fonts (Scheherazade included) and wondered where to put woff files, to avoid this problem. I could put them in the documentation folder of the package, where some sample html and css files could load the woff and display text using the woff font. I asked this question on the Debian pkg-fonts-devel mailing list, and the response [2] contradicted what Khaled Hosny said in [1]. Khaled's position (IIUC) was that the woff files should not be installed where fontconfig can find them. Debian pkg-fonts-devel mailing list said to file a bug against XeTeX for not validating the results of fontconfig. Whose advice should I follow? [1] https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/330195/how-to-set-up-the-font-scheherazade-for-use-with-xelatex [2] https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/2017-April/019348.html Thanks, Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /devos.bo...@gmail.com/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] where to put woff files
On 2017-04-06 02:39, Ulrike Fischer wrote: > On the whole I would agree with the debian answer: applications like > xetex/xdvipdfmx shouldn't try to use fonts it can't handle. Thank you for your response. I will file a bug with Debian at some point. > On windows where fontconfig is used only by xetex I would try to > blacklist the faulty fonts with a -pattern (I don't know > if it would work for the woff-problem) in the fontconfig > configuration but I don't think that there is an easy way to do > something like this on linux -- all configuration would affect other > application. So imho some other way to blacklist fonts/font types > for xetex/dvipdfmx is needed (luaotfload has a configuration file > for this). AFAIK, Windows users don't have this problem. Unless a user or an installer installed with WOFF files where fontconfig would find them, there would not be a problem. The issue comes up when the Debian/Ubuntu packages would place the WOFF files were fontconfig finds them. > That's the general answer. On the practical side: It can only help > if you can avoid to put the font somewhere where is disturb xetex. > And xetex users shold avoid "vage" font loading by adding the > extension if possible. How do I specify the extension? If I am using plain XeTeX and have a line such as \font\bodyfont="Andika New Basic/GR" at 12pt where do I put the extension? I can place the font name in brackets [], and include the extension, but then I need to supply the entire path to the font file. Thanks, Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /devos.bo...@gmail.com/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] where to put woff files
On 2017-04-06 07:31, Ulrike Fischer wrote: > Am Thu, 6 Apr 2017 07:10:06 -0600 schrieb Bobby de Vos: > >> On 2017-04-06 02:39, Ulrike Fischer wrote: >>> On the whole I would agree with the debian answer: applications like >>> xetex/xdvipdfmx shouldn't try to use fonts it can't handle. >> Thank you for your response. I will file a bug with Debian at some point. > Why Debian? I meant it is more a xetex problem so I would add a bug > report there. Sorry for the confusion. I asked about woff files on a Debian email list, and the response [1] was I should file a bug report against the package that was choking on the woff files. That package would be the package containing XeTeX. So I agree, not a Debian bug, but Debian would receive a bug against the XeTeX package, and presumably forward that bug to the XeTeX maintainers (which I would imagine are on this xetex list already). [1] https://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/2017-April/019338.html > >> where do I put the extension? I can place the font name in brackets [], >> and include the extension, but then I need to supply the entire path to >> the font file. > You don't need the full path. This here works fine for me (arial is > a system font and the other is in the texmf tree): > > \font\test="[arial.ttf]:color=FF;mapping=tex-text" at 20pt > \test > alblbl --- I had missed that, thank you for pointing it out to me. Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /devos.bo...@gmail.com/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] new version of HarfBuzz
On 2017-04-22 01:36, Jonathan Kew wrote: > So pulling a harfbuzz update into texlive/xetex and rebuilding would > indeed be beneficial. Am I correct that I could avoid rebuilding xetex on my Ubuntu Linux system? The binary /usr/bin/xetex is dynamically linked, and I have HarfBuzz and Graphite2 compiled from source and installed in /usr/local. The ldd command (ldd /usr/bin/xetex) reports those two libraries are loaded from /usr/local, and xetex -version reports Compiled with Graphite2 version 1.3.6; using 1.3.9 Compiled with HarfBuzz version 1.0.1; using 1.4.5 The xetex binary as installed by the Tex Live installer in /usr/local does not seem to load those two libraries. Which means that in order to have a xetex in /usr/bin (as packaged by Debian/Ubuntu) that has the update that JK did in the first part of 2016 to enable cross-space contextual rendering (needed for the Awami Nastaliq font) you would need Ubuntu 16.10 (yakkety) or later in order to have TeX Live 2016. Or maybe you can update /usr/bin/xetex with the PPA at ppa:jonathonf/texlive-2016, but I have not tested this to see if it would dynamically load the needed libraries. Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /devos.bo...@gmail.com/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] where to put woff files
On 2017-04-06 09:27, Jonathan Kew wrote: > On 06/04/2017 15:53, Zdenek Wagner wrote: >> 2017-04-06 15:31 GMT+02:00 Ulrike Fischer : >>> Am Thu, 6 Apr 2017 07:10:06 -0600 schrieb Bobby de Vos: >>> >>>> On 2017-04-06 02:39, Ulrike Fischer wrote: >>>>> On the whole I would agree with the debian answer: applications like >>>>> xetex/xdvipdfmx shouldn't try to use fonts it can't handle. >>>> >>>> Thank you for your response. I will file a bug with Debian at some >>>> point. >>> >>> Why Debian? I meant it is more a xetex problem so I would add a bug >>> report there. >>> >> This is certainly not a Debian bug, the font is installed as it >> should be. >> The problem is that it is not supported by XeTeX/xdvipdfmx and it is >> a question >> what XeTeX should do if fontconfig offers an unsupported font > > Well... while I agree that we should do something in XeTeX to handle > this, I also think it is a poor decision on Debian's side to mix .woff > files, which are explicitly intended for web deployment, alongside > .otf files that are expected to be available in the local GUI desktop > environment. These are two distinct categories of resource, and it > would be more appropriate to keep them separate. > > More generally, I think it's a bad idea for a distro or package or > whatever to install multiple copies of the "same" font (e.g. both > TrueType and Type1 formats) with the same name where fontconfig will > find them both. I talked with Keith, the author of fontconfig while at DebConf, and he agrees that multiple copies of the same font should not be installed where fontconfig can find them. He also thinks fontconfig/freetype should be enhanced so TrueType (and I would add OpenType) fonts are prioritized before WOFF. Either of these changes would solve the issue I have reported. He went on to say that xdvipdfmx should handle WOFF. Maybe a font designed would only release a WOFF, and a TrueType would not be available. A few more details are at https://sourceforge.net/p/xetex/bugs/139/ Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /devos.bo...@gmail.com/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] where to put woff files
On 2017-08-07 15:53, Mike "Pomax" Kamermans wrote: > On 8/6/2017 6:38 PM, Bobby de Vos wrote: >> He also thinks fontconfig/freetype should be enhanced so TrueType >> (and I would add OpenType) fonts are prioritized before WOFF. > > The idea of "installing" a WOFF resource for serving by an OS font > manager is... bad? That's not what WOFF are for, they are explicitly > intended to NOT be system level fonts, and allow certain data to be > omitted because the deployment is known to not be DTP and applications > but web content through CSS instructions. Using WOFF anyway for > something like Xe(La)TeX makes no sense, and if Debian allows WOFF to > be installed at the OS level, that's worth notifying the team over > because that's not a thing your OS should be doing. Maybe Jonathan as > one of the WOFF spec authors has a more nuanced opinion here, but this > problem sounds like it stems directly from an OS treating WOFF > resources as something they are absolutely not, with the obvious and > predictable result of breaking expectations about font resource handling. I tend to agree with you Mike (and thank you for your comments). FWIW, one of the fontconfig maintainers feels differently [1]. Debian does not have consensus on where to place WOFF files, other than under /usr/share/fonts where fontconfig finds them. So for my needs, I will just not put WOFF files in Debian packages, and the issue (for the people I support) is solved (with no work needed from the XeTeX community). What the right thing to do, and by whom, is getting beyond me. [1] https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=101270#c10 -- Bobby de Vos /devos.bo...@gmail.com/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Re: [XeTeX] listing support for teckit map files
On 2017-10-27 18:40, Daniel Greenhoe wrote: > Teckit is one of the best developments since sliced bread, so it would > be a pity not to be able to properly list teckit map source in a TeX > document. I am glad you find TECkit useful. I am the current maintainer for TECkit, so please let me know you have any issues. Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to your TeX question. Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /bobby_de...@sil.org/ -- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
[XeTeX] 64-bit binaries
Greetings, I noticed that there are two download locations for 64 bit binaries mentioned at http://w32tex.org/ One is in a section called /64bit Windows binaries for TeX Live/ and links to https://ctan.org/tex-archive/systems/win32/w32tex/TLW64 The other is location is present in the various mirrors (such as Ring Server 1) in the win64 folder. Which location should I be getting 64 bit binaries from? Thanks, Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /bobby_de...@sil.org/
Re: [XeTeX] 64-bit binaries
Philip, The URL I would give is the same you you have mentioned. The win64 folder is towards the bottom of the list, the directories are not sorted together, but everything is sorted, but with case sensitivity. So TLW64 comes way before win64. Bobby On 2021-06-02 3:01 p.m., Philip Taylor wrote: > Bobby de Vos wrote: > >> I noticed that there are two download locations for 64 bit binaries >> mentioned at http://w32tex.org/ >> >> One is in a section called /64bit Windows binaries for TeX Live/ and >> links to https://ctan.org/tex-archive/systems/win32/w32tex/TLW64 >> >> The other is location is present in the various mirrors (such as Ring >> Server 1) in the win64 folder. >> > > Following the w32tex.org link to Ring Server 1 > <http://www.dnsbalance.ring.gr.jp/archives/text/TeX/ptex-win32/current/>, > I see no mention of a "win64" folder, while I do see a TLW64 directory > <http://www.dnsbalance.ring.gr.jp/archives/text/TeX/ptex-win32/current/TLW64/>; > could you give the URL at which the "win64" folder is visible, please ? > -- > /Philip Taylor/ -- Bobby de Vos /bobby_de...@sil.org/
Re: [XeTeX] 64-bit binaries
On 2021-06-02 4:07 p.m., Akira Kakuto wrote:
> On 2021/06/03 5:01, Bobby de Vos wrote:
>> I noticed that there are two download locations for 64 bit binaries
>> mentioned at http://w32tex.org/
>>
>> One is in a section called /64bit Windows binaries for TeX Live/ and
>> links to https://ctan.org/tex-archive/systems/win32/w32tex/TLW64
>>
>> The other is location is present in the various mirrors (such as Ring
>> Server 1) in the win64 folder.
>>
>> Which location should I be getting 64 bit binaries from?
>>
>
> TLW64 folder is for TeX Live. win64 folder is for W32TeX.
Thanks, that is very helpful.
> TeX Live and W32TeX differs in directory structure and versions of
> binaries.
> Please use files in TLW64 folder for TeX Live and don't use files in
> win64 folder.
I am confused by this. I am currently using W32TeX as a minimal TeX
installation [0] that is used by another application (so not TeX Live as
installed by [1]). You can see from the update script [2] that I use
that I download
{dvipdfm-w32,web2c-lib,web2c-w32,xetex-w32}.tar.xz
Are you saying that I should use the files in the TLW64 with this TeX
tree, or download
{dvipdfm-w64,web2c-w64,xetex-w64}.tar.xz and also the web2c-lib.tar.xz
from the above list?
[0] https://github.com/sillsdev/ptx2pdf/tree/master/xetex
[1] https://www.tug.org/texlive/
[2] https://github.com/sillsdev/ptx2pdf/blob/master/bin/update-xetex.bash
--
Bobby de Vos
/bobby_de...@sil.org/
[XeTeX] w32tex.org is down
Greetings, I noticed over the past few days that http://w32tex.org/ (where I get XeTeX binaries for Windows) is down. The site says Error 403 Access Denied (Forbidden) and some text in Japanese. Is the site expected to be up anytime soon? Thanks, Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /bobby_de...@sil.org/
Re: [XeTeX] TECkit Mapping Editor
Greetings, I thought I would respond to Dominik's emails (plural) with one email, I hope that is easier to understand. On 2021-11-03 12:20 p.m., Dominik Wujastyk wrote: > The documentation for TEC mapping files mentions the Mapping Editor. > But a) I can't find it for Linux, and b) it "does not handle mapping > descriptions written as Unicode text; it is strictly an 8-bit editing > environment." Is there any chance that these limitations, especially > the latter, might be addressed in future? Especially for Asian > languages that have widely-used transliteration schemes and multiple > alphabets (like Sanskrit), TECket mapping has moved way beyond its > original purpose of mapping legacy 8-bit charsets. I am curious what version of TECkit and/or where you are reading the TECkit documentation (from the download package, or installed in Ubuntu, etc). A few years ago, in the documentation, I added the following note above the text you mention > The mapping editor described below has been superseded by the > SILConverters package, and possibly the LibreOffice Linguistic Tools > add-on, both linked to at the end of this document. In addition, the > source code for the mapping editor is lost. The old mapping editor > binary (from version 2.5.1 in 2006) only ran on Windows, and does not > run well on modern versions on Windows (7 and 10). As a result, this > binary is no longer distributed. > The links are * https://software.sil.org/silconverters * https://software.sil.org/oolt On 2021-11-03 6:22 p.m., Dominik Wujastyk wrote: > Thanks, that's a good idea. And it's not that hard, really, even just > with vi. I was only asking in case there was a fancy gui thing out > there :-) There is a nice GUI for editing TECkit maps in the SIL Converters package. It s Windows. It provides side panels that can show the legacy (8-bit) and Unicode fonts that you are mapping between, if you double click on a character then the character name or codepoint is inserted into the map file. Since I maintain TECkit, I would be happy to create a 'contrib' directory in the source repo <https://github.com/silnrsi/teckit> for items such as the vi syntax file that BPJ mentioned if that would be useful to people. Bobby -- Bobby de Vos /bobby_de...@sil.org/
