[fptex] Problems with fonts?

[Erik Meijering]

Fabrice Popineau wrote:
> 
> > Files/TeXLive/texmf/fonts/type1/urw/palatino doesn't do the job. Any
> > suggestions?
> 
> The problem is that Adobe naming is not TeX naming for these
> files. That's the reason why it doesn't work. You probably want to
> copy the URW files with Adobe names instead.

I have tried several things but so far without success.

Running dvips on the test file in my first email results in a PS file
which contains the following lines:

%%DocumentFonts: Palatino-Roman PazoMath-Italic Palatino-Italic PazoMath
%%+ CMR10 CMSY10 CMEX10

However, when I analyze the PS file I find that only CMSY10, CMR10, and
PazoMath are actually defined in that file. The other (Palatino) fonts
are left for the viewer or printer to find.

Now when I'm using GSView4.3 to view the PS file, everything looks
perfectly OK. I suppose this is because it is linked to GhostScript
(version 7.04 on my system), which knows about the following aliases:

/Palatino-Roman			/URWPalladioL-Roma	;
/Palatino-Italic		/URWPalladioL-Ital	;
/Palatino-Bold			/URWPalladioL-Bold	;
/Palatino-BoldItalic		/URWPalladioL-BoldItal	;

and for the latter it takes:

/URWPalladioL-Roma	(p052003l.pfb)	;
/URWPalladioL-Ital	(p052023l.pfb)	;
/URWPalladioL-Bold	(p052004l.pfb)	;
/URWPalladioL-BoldItal	(p052024l.pfb)	;

So first I thought these would be the correct names for the pfb files,
but renaming the URW fonts like this (and rebuilding the ls-R files)
doesn't change anything.

I also noticed that mathpazo.sty says things like
"\renewcommand{\rmdefault}{ppl}". Does this mean that the fonts should
be renamed to "ppl-something"?

Any further suggestions are more than welcome.

-Erik