Re: [NTG-context] [tex-implementors] MetaPost 1.001 announcement
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Taco Hoekwater wrote: > The MetaPost team is happy to announce a new release of MetaPost: > > -- > MetaPost 1.001 > -- > > The sources and a win32 package can be downloaded immediately from > >https://foudnry.supelec.fr/projects/metapost/ > > The source package should compile normally on all systems that are > capable of compiling a modern web2c-based TeX distribution. > > The win32 package is intended for texlive or a similar web2c-based > installation, and has been tested only with TeXLive 2007. These > executables will *not* work for miktex, sorry. Many thanks for the announcement, but (for a sake) we will use for Tex Live the compilation made by Akira, right? -- Staszek Wawrykiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] [tex-implementors] MetaPost 1.000 announcement
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007, Taco Hoekwater wrote: > The MetaPost team is happy to announce a new release of MetaPost: > > -- > MetaPost 1.000 > -- Many thanks! > The sources and a win32 package can be downloaded immediately from > >https://foudnry.supelec.fr/projects/metapost/ should be https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/metapost/ Will taste in Bachotek :-) Thanks, -- Staszek Wawrykiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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 : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___
Re: [NTG-context] Fleurons
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Hans Hagen wrote: > Staszek Wawrykiewicz wrote: > > AFM and PFM files are supplied here for the sake of > > completeness only. They are normally not required for use > > with TeX. > this is not true, you need the afm's when you use them to make graphics > in other progs that will then be used by tex; also, you need them in > order to generate metrics for encodings other than teh shipped ones Hans, I cited readme by Walter and tried to explain: there's no ready tfm metrics for _those_ urw. Existing ones were generated for older, not so nice urw fonts. > > In fact, nobody knows how the *old* mess with tfm, vf etc. fits > > to more *new* urw pfb which are of better quality then the older ones. > > Anyway both distributions cannot be mixed. Not to say about packaging, etc. > > So I introduced "urw35vf" (#3416) which contains all (historical) stuff > > for those using urw fonts directly (.vf, .tfm, .fd, .sty files). > > Everybody has freedom using them from TL. Thomas removed such stuff > > from teTeX as simply garbage. > > he's free to do that but it sounds strange and dangerous to me Why? Anybody is free to make tfm files, as afm files are always available for _that_ set of urw fonts. -- Staszek Wawrykiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
Re: [NTG-context] Fleurons
On Tue, 31 May 2005, Karl Berry wrote: > this differes per year; i keep changing these names and always lag > behind one tex live version > > TL has always distributed both pzdr.tfm and uzdr.tfm. I don't have an > easy way to check the situation in teTeX. teTeX has only pzdr.tfm. See below for reasons. > one of the previous tex lives someone moved the urw's to some 35vf > folder, after that things went bad (got lost and such); i discussed > this with Staszek and he reverted it; > > Starting in TL 2003, uzdr.tfm was indeed put under urw35vf instead of > just urw. I do not know/remember why, or who did it (though we could > check the logs), or what "got lost" as a result. It is also still the > case in the current sources, so I also don't know what you mean by > Staszek "reverted it". Staszek, what did you do? I can explain it once again. In 2003 all that urw mess was hopefully cleaned on CTAN and then on TL. Discussion started on 6 june and on 24 july that's me, who cleaned it for TL. The *base* 35 urw fonts (only afm and pfm/pfb) were prepared *after* all that urw tfm, vf etc. support files were made. >From README.base35 TeX systems can use these fonts as drop-in replacements for Adobe's PostScript Base fonts, which are not free. No particular TeX metrics, virtual fonts or macro files are provided for URW's base fonts. They are to be used with the same support files as Adobe's originals, i.e., with the files of the PSNFSS collection. AFM and PFM files are supplied here for the sake of completeness only. They are normally not required for use with TeX. In fact, nobody knows how the *old* mess with tfm, vf etc. fits to more *new* urw pfb which are of better quality then the older ones. Anyway both distributions cannot be mixed. Not to say about packaging, etc. So I introduced "urw35vf" (#3416) which contains all (historical) stuff for those using urw fonts directly (.vf, .tfm, .fd, .sty files). Everybody has freedom using them from TL. Thomas removed such stuff from teTeX as simply garbage. > Meanwhile, the afm and pfb are under just urw/. It seems odd, though I > can imagine how it could happen. ??? Everything is OK: fonts/afm/urw/ and fonts/type1/urw/ > Clearly the URW fonts are not 100% identical to the Adobe fonts, but in > practice we have to accept the URW Type 1's under the p* names, because > the p* names are what most documents have historically used. We can't > suddenly make those documents unusable, that would be disastrous. > For that matter, the Adobe fonts themselves have changed over the > years. Nothing is perfect. Right. > but context (users) expect the whole set of urw (afm & pfb) to be > present because they generate other encodings and such; > > uzdr.afm and uzdr.pfb are both in the current TL sources, and always > have been. I know of no reason or suggestion to delete them. They are as well present in teTeX. > i think that we need to get rid of the urw mappings in the aliases file > > I agree. I have now deleted the aliases file altogether from the TL > sources. We'll see how that flies. I don't know if that will change > anything wrt gwTeX, though. Ahh, I see! aliases could cause problems. Thanks for deleting that file. Best, -- Staszek Wawrykiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ntg-context mailing list ntg-context@ntg.nl http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
[NTG-context] Re: Can I compare with someone?
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, David Arnold wrote: > I've recently installed tetex 2.0.2. I am having difficulty with Metapost > [...] > Now, when I compile, texexec seems to be invoked. Is this what happens on > your systems? Is this correct behavior? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] darnold]$ mpost junk > This is MetaPost, Version 0.641 (Web2C 7.4.5) > (junk.mp > TeXExec 4.0 - ConTeXt / PRAGMA ADE 1997-2003 It seems that somebody changed texmf.cnf, e.g. declaring here something like: TEX = context or, worse, changed makempx script. Anyway, tetex 2.0.2, as it is distributed is OK. I've observed that some Linux distributions provide changed tetex config files, not always in a happy way... I don't know how such situation could be cured, as packages are often not signed. The notable example is still not updated tetex in the _current_ RedHat9.0. It is still tetex 1.0.7, but broken in many parts. -- Staszek Wawrykiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
