[tex-live] pdftex ambiguous entry for `ecbm1440': font file present but not included

Robin Fairbairns Robin.Fairbairns at cl.cam.ac.uk
Fri Jan 18 01:31:54 CET 2008

Patrice Dumas <pertusus at free.fr> wrote:

> In fedora using the default fedora updmap.cfg, a pdftex run leads to many 
> pdfTeX warning: /usr/bin/pdflatex (file /var/lib/texmf/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap/pdftex.map): ambiguous entry for `ecbm1440': font file present but not
> included, will be treated as font file not present
> It seems to me that it is because there is the map
> MixedMap cm-super-t1.map
> and that it corresponds with
> texmf/fonts/map/dvipdfm/context/cm-super-t1.map
> which is a dvipdfm map file which is not compatible with pdftex maps,
> since it has lines like
> ecbm1440 cm-super-t1 sfbm1440
> which are not correct for pdftex, they should be like
> ecbm1440 cm-super-t1 <sfbm1440.pfb
> or even better, as in the pdftex.map shipped with texlive
> ecbm1440 SFBM1440 "T1Encoding ReEncodeFont" <cm-super-t1.enc <sfbm1440.pfb
> So it seems to me that another cm-super-t1.map is missing which would be
> correct for dvips/pdftex. But even in that case how comes that a dvipdfm
> map is used for a pdftex map? Is it a bug in updmap? Somewhere else?

i presume you're talking about the fedora 8 beta port of tex live,
that's now on its way in fedora 9?

it's _not_ a tex live issue: i corrected it by providing myself with the
correct map file from the tex live disc.

if so, this is a failure to rectify something i reported to the thread
on the redhat bugs system rather early on.  they had reported the bug
resolved, i thought.

would you post an issue on the redhat bugreport site, please?


[caveat: all my notes about this are in a notebook on my desk.  since
i've been off sick most of this year so far, i'm doing all this from

More information about the tex-live mailing list