From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id rCH1K2uYul7PZQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 12:36:59 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id 0HpDA3qYul7XWQAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 12:37:14 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93E32940EED for ; Tue, 12 May 2020 12:37:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:60032 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYU9n-0006rz-7h for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 08:37:11 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41546) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYU9e-0006qa-LO for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 08:37:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:42939) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jYU9e-0008Qw-CX for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 08:37:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jYU9e-0004Wq-8P for bug-guix@gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 08:37:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#40558: (no subject) Resent-From: Jelle Licht Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 12:37:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 40558 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: elaexuotee@wilsonb.com, 40558@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 40558-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B40558.158928702017401 (code B ref 40558); Tue, 12 May 2020 12:37:02 +0000 Received: (at 40558) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 May 2020 12:37:00 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54485 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jYU9c-0004Wa-4O for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 08:37:00 -0400 Received: from mail1.fsfe.org ([217.69.89.151]:41962) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jYU9b-0004WS-6x for 40558@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 12 May 2020 08:36:59 -0400 From: Jelle Licht In-Reply-To: <27M6ZG86RAW9I.2JWF3V3MICGED@wilsonb.com> References: <874ktqxalv.fsf@jlicht.xyz> <27M6ZG86RAW9I.2JWF3V3MICGED@wilsonb.com> Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 14:36:55 +0200 Message-ID: <87zhade3dk.fsf@jlicht.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: -0.91 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed), No valid DKIM" header.from=fsfe.org (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [-0.91 / 13.00]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.5400205783033]; DWL_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.51.188.0/24:c]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.06), country: US(-0.00), ip: 209.51.188.17(-0.54)]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[cached: eggs.gnu.org]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22989, ipnet:209.51.188.0/24, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[larch=yhetil.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[wilsonb.com:email]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[jlicht@fsfe.org,bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.51.188.17:from]; RCVD_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[7]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[fsfe.org : SPF not aligned (relaxed), No valid DKIM,none] X-TUID: f+bqKy7HxIUN elaexuotee@wilsonb.com writes: > With the patch to texlive-amsfonts the above typesets just fine; however, metafont ends up generating cmmi10.657pk and cmr10.657pk font files. Is this expected? Typsetting it from the texlive installation of my foreign distro doesn't call out to metafont at all. As I mentioned earlier, I am not a tex expert at all. I have no clue, but if my patch makes spooky things happen, we should probably hold off on applying it. - Jelle