You are not logged in.

#1 2008-06-10 19:53:31

davidoff
Member
Registered: 2008-06-10
Posts: 23

pdflatex and ghostscript

I think pdflatex gives me ugly fonts in evince, and I think this started just after I installed ghostscript.  pdflatex font output: if it's helpful follows.

</opt/texlive/texmf-dist/f
onts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/dpi600/cmmi7.pk> </opt/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/pk/ljf
our/public/cm/dpi600/cmmi10.pk> </opt/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/pk/ljfour/public
/cm/dpi600/cmbx10.pk> </var/tmp/texfonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/cmsy10.720pk> </va
r/tmp/texfonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/cmbx12.600pk> </opt/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts
/pk/ljfour/public/cm/dpi600/cmr6.pk> </var/tmp/texfonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/cmm
i6.600pk> </var/tmp/texfonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/cmex10.720pk> </var/tmp/texfon
ts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/cmmi12.600pk> </var/tmp/texfonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/cmm
i8.600pk> </opt/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/dpi720/cmbx12.pk> 
</var/tmp/texfonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/cmti12.600pk> </opt/texlive/texmf-dist/f
onts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/dpi600/cmr7.pk> </var/tmp/texfonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm
/cmtt10.600pk> </opt/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/dpi600/cmr10.
pk> </opt/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/dpi600/cmsy7.pk> </opt/t
exlive/texmf-dist/fonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/dpi600/cmr8.pk> </opt/texlive/texmf
-dist/fonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/dpi600/cmr12.pk> </var/tmp/texfonts/pk/ljfour/p
ublic/cm/cmbx12.864pk> </var/tmp/texfonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/cmr10.657pk> </va
r/tmp/texfonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/cmbx10.657pk> </opt/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts
/pk/ljfour/public/cm/dpi600/cmsy10.pk> </var/tmp/texfonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/c
mr12.720pk> </var/tmp/texfonts/pk/ljfour/public/cm/cmr17.720pk>
Output written on manhattanr.pdf (29 pages, 272775 bytes).
Transcript written on manhattanr.log.

Offline

#2 2008-06-10 20:14:32

bender02
Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2007-02-04
Posts: 1,328

Re: pdflatex and ghostscript

Try running 'updmap' (or 'updmap-sys' as root). If it doesn't help, try Stefan Husmann's: "The quick-and-dirty-hack solution old be: rename or delete /opt/texlive/texmf-var/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap/pdftex.map" (and probably run 'updmap-sys' as root after that again).

The thing is that pdflatex is not using type1 fonts (*.pk above) instead of postscript fonts.

EDIT: for more explanations, see http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TeXLive_FAQ

Last edited by bender02 (2008-06-10 20:15:13)

Offline

#3 2008-06-10 21:39:14

Stefan Husmann
Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2007-08-07
Posts: 999

Re: pdflatex and ghostscript

davidoff, in which language do you write your documents, and do you have a \usepackage[t1]{fontenc} in your preamble? If you are writing in a language that is not english or slovenian (both having a character-set without any accents), you should also do a \usepackage{lmodern}.

If you write english or slovenian you do not need \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}.

Offline

#4 2008-06-10 22:01:38

davidoff
Member
Registered: 2008-06-10
Posts: 23

Re: pdflatex and ghostscript

bender02's suggestion fixed it.  Should have looked more carefully at the TexLive FAQ.  Thanks.

Offline

#5 2008-06-10 22:37:05

bender02
Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2007-02-04
Posts: 1,328

Re: pdflatex and ghostscript

@Stefan: these packages should have no influence on whether .pk fonts or postscript fonts are included. Am I wrong?

Think of it this way: regular tex makes .dvi (all packages are accounted for by then); and the only information about fonts in a .dvi is their metrics (stuff in .tfm files). Only then dvips or dvipdf decides if to use .pk or .pfb fonts.

Offline

#6 2008-06-11 12:50:03

Stefan Husmann
Member
From: Germany
Registered: 2007-08-07
Posts: 999

Re: pdflatex and ghostscript

You are right, but afaik they should by default try to use Postscript fonts (.pfb) if they are available. And cm-fonts are always available in .pfb-format since teTeX 2.x

I did a wrong reasoning. In former days if one writes a german text (or a text in any other latin-character-set-based language) you have to use T1 font encoding. Otherwise the hyphenation woill not work properly. In these days the only CM like font family were the ec fonts. These were and are only available in mf format. So mailing lists were full of messages like "fonts in my pdfs are so ugly". But my wrong reasoning was: the were invoked as ecrm1000 or the like not showing up as cmbx12, as in the posting above.

Generating pk fonts for existing cm*.pfb fonts is a bug I think. I did not hear of such behaviour in other distros yet and in arch only pdflatex seems to behave that way (that may be for the reason that nobody uses dvips anymore, but I suspect that this is not the case).

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB