bug#40558: Modular TexLive "Insufficient extension fonts" and duplicate fonts

[Ricardo Wurmus]

elaexuotee@wilsonb.com writes:

>> At least the question “is texlive-amsfonts broken” is definitively
>> answered.  This was what this issue was about, no?  I’d rather keep the
>> other issue separate.
>
> Well, it's still broken in the sense that we're not able to typeset with
> eufm10, no?

Something might be broken, but it’s not texlive-amsfonts.

Going back to the first message in this bug report here I can no longer
reproduce the problem.  I used this manifest:

(specifications->manifest
 (list "texlive-amscls" 
       "texlive-amsfonts"       
       "texlive-base"   
       "texlive-cm"     
       "texlive-cm-super"       
       "texlive-fontinst"       
       "texlive-fonts-ec"       
       "texlive-fonts-latex"    
       "texlive-generic-ulem"   
       "texlive-hyperref"
       "texlive-latex-amsmath"
       "texlive-latex-base"     
       "texlive-latex-capt-of"  
       "texlive-latex-preview"  
       "texlive-latex-wrapfig"  
       "texlive-latexconfig"    
       "texlive-metafont"       
       "texlive-oberdiek"       
       "texlive-pstool" 
       "texlive-unicode-data"))

And this TeX file:

broken.tex
Description: TeX document

Running pdflatex on the file throws no errors and it produces a PDF file
as expected.

So I’ll close this issue.  I suggest we keep investigating the problem
with eufm10 in issue 53339.

-- 
Ricardo