Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Using TU format means we are not using cmr
At least, that makes sense and is I think why these tests are failing. I'm pretty sure the format being used is the correct (TU-active) one!
- Loading branch information
1 parent
3274138
commit 6395e92
Showing
4 changed files
with
0 additions
and
4 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@ | ||
| This is a generated file for the LaTeX2e validation system. | ||
| Don't change this file in any respect. | ||
| This test has error at begin document due to the special font setup in the test suite | ||
| Missing character: There is no − (U+2212) in font cmr10! | ||
| [1 | ||
| ] (tlb-utex-004.aux) |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@ | ||
| This is a generated file for the LaTeX2e validation system. | ||
| Don't change this file in any respect. | ||
| This test has error at begin document due to the special font setup in the test suite | ||
| Missing character: There is no − in font cmr10! | ||
| [1 | ||
| ] (tlb-utex-004.aux) |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@ | ||
| This is a generated file for the LaTeX2e validation system. | ||
| Don't change this file in any respect. | ||
| This test has error at begin document due to the special font setup in the test suite | ||
| Missing character: There is no − (U+2212) in font cmr10! | ||
| [1 | ||
| ] (tlb-utex-005.aux) |
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,6 +1,5 @@ | ||
| This is a generated file for the LaTeX2e validation system. | ||
| Don't change this file in any respect. | ||
| This test has error at begin document due to the special font setup in the test suite | ||
| Missing character: There is no − in font cmr10! | ||
| [1 | ||
| ] (tlb-utex-005.aux) |
6395e92There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
well, this was not the case in the past (where the special setup copied from the support dir forced cmr. Thus the
line in the lvt. If this is no longer done this way (not followed the recent changes), then this comment should vanish too as it is now quite misleading. But if the font setup has not deliberately changed then one better really understands why there is now this diff.
6395e92There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
6395e92There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
6395e92There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm pretty confident that the previous behaviour was wrong, but I'll wait to hear from @davidcarlisle after he's had a proper look. If it is, I guess the comment needs to go.
6395e92There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
6395e92There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I also appreciate the change as the old setup was causing more than once some head scratching. My point was only that I wanted to understand what was changed and if that was deliberate (eg not any longer using the crippled setup). So if this is intentional then lets go with it and update the lvt to not claim something that is no longer true ... as that will otherwise later cause some scratching :-)
6395e92There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, I was mainly checking that I'd got it right that the test outcome was supposed to be using a standard format. I'm sure that is now right: I will merge across.