karl at freefriends.org
Sun Jul 11 02:04:17 CEST 2010
What if the new glyph is named Copyleft instead of copyleft? I.e., the
whole problem with euro vs. Euro can repeat ad infinitum, with any glyph
in any font at any time. Or new glyphs might be created which are
conveniently added in an empty slot, not in a whole new font. In
general, pretty much every font I know of which started off using
"common" definitions eventually ended up diverging and needing its own
In any event, I suppose it ultimately depends on how careful you want to
be. If you are confident you will never change ts1-euro in the future,
then there's no technical problem with just using it and repeating it as
many times as you like. As long as the files are identical, it doesn't
matter which one is found, so (true) duplicates aren't a problem.
I still think each font should have its own copy to avoid dependencies.
Getting back to your original point, I think that duplication is better
than having a separate package with the common files, because
package-to-package dependencies in TL are not perfect and not
Up to you. You asked for advice, well, that's my advice :).
The definition of /fontinst...euro is the
stuff between the square brackets in the .enc file, correct?
I would have thought it would make sense for that to be the same
across fonts just because the encoding is the same.
I was talking about the name, not the definition. Yes, the glyph names
in the definition have to match whatever the fonts have. So if the
fonts use the same glyph names, the enc definition will be the same too.
(And, more likely, if the fonts use different glyph names, the enc
definitions have to be different.)
More information about the tex-live