Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/11/20/12:31:44
Gurunandan R. Bhat (grbhat AT unigoa DOT ernet DOT in) wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Jim Chapman wrote:
>> Btw, I would be glad if people who are knowledgeable about TeX fonts
>> would recommend what missing fonts are used a lot and should therefore
>> be added to the standard distribution.
>
>I am not knowledgeable but have worked on many tex installations and I
>find the djgpp web2c font support perfectly adequate by latex209
>standards. Since LaTeX2e came, the font selection scheme has been updated
>(new font selection scheme (nfss)) and our port would do with the addition
>of the new encoding files (.enc). Also useful would be the psnfss
>distribution and the "35 postscript fonts" distribution.
>
>I must emphasise that all these can be painlessly downlaoaded from the
>CTAN archives which makes the case for bundling a bit weak.
I think that the current tex distribution is good enough, but maybe
the TeX.readme should emphasize that it doesn't contain all fonts, and
should contain a pointer to where (CTAN:/tex-archive/fonts) one could
get other fonts. (Most important for newcomers to TeX.) This keeps the
distribution size less large, and you can never avoid not having some
fonts, if you use someone else's DVI or LaTeX files.
I'm no expert either, but I think the bare bones of TeX-fonts are:
cm, dc, ec(=jknappen/ec), latex, (equals part of amsfonts),
less bare bone:
amsfonts, psfonts,
even more less bare bone:
bbm/bbold (mathematical font for R,N,E,P, etc.), euler, wasy,
least bare bone:
other fonts I have never heard about.
hth,
Robert.
--
rjvdboon AT cs DOT vu DOT nl | "En dat is niet waar!" sprak Staatsecretaris
www.cs.vu.nl/~rjvdboon | Netelenbos (onderwijs) fel.
- Raw text -