Re: [cjk] texlive svn write access Fw: Re: revisiting ttf2tfm and dvipdfmx

[Hin-Tak Leung]

Peter Breitenlohner wrote:> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
>
>>>> - the post table issue is in pdftex/dvipdfmx/xdvidpdfmx (see below). Very
>>>>   old fonts use 00000000 but really should be treated as 00030000 (which
>>>>   is basically no post table).
>
> Hi Hin-Tak,
>
> I'd rather say:
>        ...................... but really should have 00030000 (no post table).

> Does 'all' mean pdftex/luatex/xetex or as well dvipdfmx/xdvidpdfmx?

Similiar logic are in dvipdfmx, xdvipdfmx, pdftex, luatex. I only tried
dvipdfmx and pdftex.

>> Not everybody should be required to use a hex editor to modify a "not-needed"
>> byte in some 15-yr-old fonts to use them.
>
> I don't agree at all.  Everybody should either throw away these broken font
> files or get them fixed (with a hex editor or otherwise).

That's probably why fewer and fewer people are using TeX. CJK fonts of unusual 
typefaces are difficult to come by. Not everybody have the knowledge/know-hows 
to change these fonts in the necessary way (and minimally). You are trying to 
punish users for wanting to do in TeX what they can do with some "easier" 
typesetting systems.

> > That's texlive shipped with fedora. It says 20130608 r30832 over all.

> that is the FreeType 1 version and 'ttf2tfm -help' should say 'Version 1.5'.
> Is this 32bit or 64bit?

64-bit.

> Perhaps 10 years ago you have used a 32bit version and now a 64bit one?

That's possible. It is a bug, in any case.

> You should get the current TeX Live svn, build the FreeType 2 Version, and
> repeat the test with that one.  I have just tried that for 32bit with no
> problems.

It isn't really my intention to spend more time on this than necessary. I think 
this exchange is discouraging enough I don't want to spend time going off in 
that direction.

> This is definitely inside libttf, not much we can do about.

"can't" or "won't"?

> > ------------
> >
> > (gdb) run  open-more/mikachanALL.ttc -f 1 -q -w address@hidden@
> > Starting program: /usr/bin/ttf2tfm open-more/mikachanALL.ttc -f 1 -q -w
> > address@hidden@
> >
> > Program received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
> > 0x0000000000407443 in readttf (address@hidden, quiet=True,
> > address@hidden)
> >    at ../../../texk/ttf2pk/ttfaux.c:262
> > 262        fnt->xheight = properties.os2->sxHeight * 1000 / fnt->units_per_em;
> > (gdb) bt
> > #0  0x0000000000407443 in readttf (address@hidden, quiet=True,
> > address@hidden)
> >    at ../../../texk/ttf2pk/ttfaux.c:262
> > #1  0x0000000000401c86 in main (argc=<optimized out>, argv=<optimized out>) at
> > ../../../texk/ttf2pk/ttf2tfm.c:907
> > (gdb) print fnt->units_per_em
> > $1 = 0
> > (gdb) print properties.os2->sxHeight
> > $2 = 6896
> > (gdb)
>
> Either bad logic or invalid font data.  Hard to say without mikachanALL.ttc.

I mentioned this font is on sourceforge. It still is (or a version of it). Mine 
has a date stamp of "Jun  8  2004", the "current" downloadable version in
http://mikachan.sourceforge.jp/win.html
(http://mikachan.sourceforge.jp/mikachanALL.exe)
seems to be 8 months younger. Perhaps you can have a go at that. The issue was 
intermittent here, and ftdump (from freetype 2.5.0.1) does not show problem with 
EM size, so the trace was strange.

Hin-Tak