Re: fontinst 1.801 -- still worse

["Walter Schmidt" <walter.schmidt@arcormail.de>]

On Tue, 8 Jun 1999 17:40:23 +0200, Lars Hellström wrote:

>I don't think that would be such a good idea as it might sound, since there
>are rounding errors introduced in all these conversions. A better way would
>be to create the ligful PLs from the same MTXes as was used for the
>non-ligful ones; this should ensure that the character metrics really are
>the same.

I understand.

>
>Of course, I'm not quite sure at the moment how the TFMs in fonts/tfm/...
>were made, so there might not be any MTXes to start from.

AFAIK they were made using fontinst 1.800, and there are no 
MTXes available any more.  However, the metrics are fortunately
identical with those produced using v1.801 (except for the 
checksums).

>
>As for the checksums in VFs, I think that subject was debated here some
>time ago and that it ended with "that's just the way things are", 

At that time I did not yet understand the topic ... 
Now I have found several messages re. checksums from 1998 in my
mail archive.  However, they don't touch my current questions:

1) vptovf does apparently NOT add checksums.  Is this just 
a bug with the version 1.4 I am running here?  (I am running
TeX under OS/2, so, please, don't tell me to just get the
latest Web2c distribution!)

2) If NO:  How can I add correct checksums to the vf's?
(I can execute vftovp and then, again, vptovf, which will
just insert the checksums found under fonts/tfm/... ,
whether they are correct or not.  At least, this could
fix the problems with the faked math fonts.)

3 (new question) How did the correct checksums get into the 
tfm's distributed from CTAN? 


Apparently so far only the people who developed the fontinst 
stuff were using it seriously, and they already know all the 
details, which are _not_ explained in the documentation ;-)


Greetings

Walter