[tlbuild] ttf2pk versus ttf2pk2

[Hin-Tak Leung]

Here is the subset relevant to texlive of the (still growing) list of issues
while revising cjk/doc/pdfhowto/HOWTO.txt I wrote 10 years ago:

- segmentation fault with 10 fonts
- tfm indeterminism with every font
- intermittent floating point exception with every ttc's.
- post version 0 (of two rather old ttf's) not accepted by pdftex/dvipdfmx
- bad/non-working interaction between dvipdfmx and the lscape/pdflscape packages
- ttf2tfm generates invalid tfm's. (7 invalid CHARHT, 2 invalid CHARIC, and
     1 invalid CHARDP).
- ttf2tfm generates negative CHARWD's for a font which should have +ve ones.
- dvipdfmx and pdftex processes negative CHARWD's differently.
       (negative CHARWD's are not invalid per se).

Here are the screenshots for the last item:
http://www.ghostscript.com/~hintak/tmp/dvipdfmx-retro.png
http://www.ghostscript.com/~hintak/tmp/pdftex-retro.png

After fixing the indeterminism and the floating point exception, the
segmentation fault also seems to disappeared (or it may come back with a 
different compilation...). Look at the result afterwards compared to the 
10-year-old tfm's (about 14,000 of them; the current set is 21000+),

about 2/3 of them are the same.
about 20% of them have a "progression" - it looks like 10 years ago
ttf2tfm always generates half-width for font dimensions, even for proportional 
fonts; this is no longer the case.
The rest (about 10%) is actually indeterminism in the 10-year-old versions.

There also seems to be another "progression" - new subfont #00 and #56 and #57 
where there were none. (a few dozen of these).

I offered to spend time fixing these issues. It was rejected. I don't 
particularly want to spend time doing that anyway. Just as well.

I don't think it is appropriate for somebody who does not use or understand
ttf2pk/ttf2tfm for their intended purposes (adding new fonts to TeX) to do a
re-write.

Claiming the new version does the "same" as the old, when the old is 
indeterministic, seems wrong, and also quite dishonest.

attached is the patch to fix the post-table issue with dvipdfmx. (same patch
should apply to xdvipdfmx as well). also inlined below.

--- texlive-source/texk/dvipdfmx/src/tt_post.c.orig	2013-01-10 
14:06:19.000000000 +0000
+++ texlive-source/texk/dvipdfmx/src/tt_post.c	2013-07-31 18:43:19.658344495 +0100
@@ -148,15 +148,13 @@
        tt_release_post_table(post);
        post = NULL;
      }
-  } else if (post->Version == 0x00030000UL) {
+  } else {
+    if (post->Version != 0x00030000UL)
+      WARN("Unknown 'post' version: %08X, treat as v3", post->Version);
      post->numberOfGlyphs  = 0; /* wrong */
      post->glyphNamePtr    = NULL;
      post->count           = 0;
      post->names           = NULL;
-  } else {
-    WARN("Unknown 'post' version: %08X", post->Version);
-    tt_release_post_table(post);
-    post = NULL;
    }

    return post;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dvipdfmx-post-table.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 719 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/tlbuild/attachments/20130731/f20ac510/attachment.bin>