[tex-live] Re: context / directory structure

Hans Hagen pragma at wxs.nl
Wed May 5 21:48:18 CEST 2004

Hi Thomas,

> > >please move
> > >  fonts/enc/context -> fonts/enc/dvips/context
> > >  fonts/map/context -> fonts/map/dvips/context
> > >  original-micropress-informal.map -> fonts/map/pdftex/context
> > >  texnansi-bh-lucida.map -> fonts/map/pdftex/context
> >
> > what is the logic behind that? arent's the enc and map files generic
> > nowadays? i start getting lost -)
>That's the way the new TDS was written. The idea is that map files already
>have slight variants (the ones that I mention above are using a syntax
>which is incompatible with dvips). And for enc files, Karl wanted to use
>a similar structure. Just to avoid that we need to move them if we need
>a syntax level at a later point.

i just looked into the consequences and it means that i have to 
re-reorganize my trees as well as to patch texfont and friends again ... so 
before i start that advanture once more i want to make sure of a few things 
(therefore the c to the tex live list):

Can we be sure that this is the final change, i.e. we now have:

   - dvips
   - pdftex
   - dvipdfmx

since they all seems to understand the same encoding file syntax, i wonder 
what the encs do under /dvips/enc, unless we consider dvips to be generic 
like we do with tex; in the (maybe not even that far feature) there may be 
support for different font mechanisms and so i wonder if the organization 
should be more long the lines


and alike. This would also more force applications to follow similar rules 
(syntax and so); in the end we may well end up with xml definitions and 
interfaces to 'font characteristics databases'. So, if we are now in 
'reorganization mode', why not clear up the differences between dvips, 
pdftex and dvipdfmx as well?

I ask this because in texfont, currently the enc/map subpaths are kind of 
hard coded:

my $afmpath = "$fontroot/fonts/afm/$vendor/$collection" ;
my $tfmpath = "$fontroot/fonts/tfm/$vendor/$collection" ;
my $vfpath  = "$fontroot/fonts/vf/$vendor/$collection" ;
my $pfbpath = "$fontroot/fonts/type1/$vendor/$collection" ;
my $ttfpath = "$fontroot/fonts/truetype/$vendor/$collection" ;
my $mappath = "$fontroot/fonts/map" ;
my $encpath = "$fontroot/fonts/enc" ;

I wonder what logic to apply in figuring out how to use:

my $mappath = "$fontroot/fonts/dvips/map" ;
my $encpath = "$fontroot/fonts/dvips/enc" ;


my $mappath = "$fontroot/fonts/pdftex/map" ;
my $encpath = "$fontroot/fonts/pdftex/enc" ;

since i need to choose, should i randomly choose between them? There is no 
way to ask kpsewhich 'give me the prefered pdf map file path for this 
particular kind of map file'.

With regards to the map file, if there are differences between 
dvips/pdftex/dvipdfmx, i have a problem with putting the files under dvips 
since they are actually meant for pdftex; i'm not sure what the difference 
in syntax is you refer too, (maybe the missing FontNames, but dvips should 
be able to handle this). What is the minimal format that all those programs 

Also, if there are differences, what exactly is the 'prefered search 
structure than'?

dvips  -> first dvips  subpath, then pdftex search path, then dvipdfmx subpath
pdftex -> first pdftex subpath, then dvips  search path, then dvipdfmx subpath

etc? Or will can there be duplicate filenames in each path?

(btw, the coming version of context will, more than in the past, load 
mapfiles on demand, so in a next tex live i may as well omit the map files 
and include them in tex directly, but that would render texfont useless for 
other than context)


More information about the tex-live mailing list