1

The following code in preamble gives me trouble on my desktop, but not on my laptop (I'm using on both of them Ubuntu 14.04). If I remove it, I find myself unable to use \widecheck throghout the document:

\DeclareFontFamily{U}{mathx}{\hyphenchar\font45}
\DeclareFontShape{U}{mathx}{m}{n}{
      <5> <6> <7> <8> <9> <10>
      <10.95> <12> <14.4> <17.28> <20.74> <24.88>
      mathx10
      }{}
\DeclareSymbolFont{mathx}{U}{mathx}{m}{n}
\DeclareFontSubstitution{U}{mathx}{m}{n}
\DeclareMathAccent{\widecheck}{0}{mathx}{"71}

Specifically, this error, repeated several times, results while compiling:

This is METAFONT, Version 2.718281 (TeX Live 2013/Debian)

kpathsea: Running mktexmf mathx10

! I can't find file `mathx10'. <*> ...=ljfour; mag:=1; nonstopmode; input mathx10 Please type another input file name ! Emergency stop. <*> ...=ljfour; mag:=1; nonstopmode; input mathx10 Transcript written on mfput.log.

grep: mathx10.log: File o directory non esistente

mktextfm: `mf-nowin -progname=mf \mode:=ljfour; mag:=1; nonstopmode; input mathx10' failed to make mathx10.tfm. kpathsea: Running mktextfm mathx10

mktextfm: Running mf-nowin -progname=mf \mode:=ljfour; mag:=1; nonstopmode; input mathx10

and then, after compilation, which substantially returns the PDF, except for the \widecheck symbols, there is this one, with different dimensions and lines:

! Font U/mathx/m/n/10.95=mathx10 at 10.95pt not loadable: Metric (TFM) file not
found.
<to be read again>
relax
l.236 \begin{equation}
I wasn't able to read the size data for this font,
so I will ignore the font specification.
[Wizards can fix TFM files using TFtoPL/PLtoTF.]
You might try inserting a different font spec;
e.g., type `I\font<same font id>=<substitute font name>'.

I've tried to copy all the TFM files from the laptop to the desktop (actually, there were about 18 000 files of that type on the laptop, while only a few more than 3 000 of them were present on the desktop), but also after a complete rebooting, the error still holds. How can I try to solve it?

Thanks in advance.

afullo
  • 11
  • 1
  • 1
    Welcome to TeX.SX! Copying a bunch of files without knowing what they do is not the way to go. Can you specify what TeX distributions you have on the two machines? – egreg Jul 06 '15 at 18:11
  • Thank you! I'm using Texmaker 4.1 on both machines; I've also tried with Texstudio 2.6.6 on the desktop, without having success. – afullo Jul 06 '15 at 21:07
  • Texmaker is just a front end; the TeX distribution is a different thing. Is there TeX Live 2013/Debian on both machines? You can see it from the banner at the start of the .log file. – egreg Jul 06 '15 at 21:09
  • Yes, there is: by compiling the documents on both machines, I see only that the version is different, namely "This is pdfTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.5-1.40.14 (TeX Live 2013/Debian) (format=latex 2014.6.5)" versus "This is pdfTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.5-1.40.14 (TeX Live 2013/Debian) (format=latex 2014.8.9)", respectively in reference with the desktop and the laptop. – afullo Jul 06 '15 at 21:18
  • The difference in the dates is irrelevant (it's basically when you installed TeX Live). A diff with dpkg about TeX Live packages seems to be necessary. – egreg Jul 06 '15 at 21:29
  • So you suggest something like to update both list of packages at their latest versions? – afullo Jul 06 '15 at 21:33
  • Yes. I tried looking in the list of Debian packages, but I couldn't find texlive-fontsextra (or a similar name) that should contain mathabx. Check for something like that on both machines. – egreg Jul 06 '15 at 21:36
  • mathabx is actually present in /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/public/mathabx also on the desktop, maybe the folder is not correctly recognized by the compiler (also, for an unknown reason, by searching it with the "find utility", on the whole file system, only two files external to the folder are found, and not the folder itself) ? – afullo Jul 06 '15 at 21:49
  • My best advice is to install texlive-full on both machines. – egreg Jul 06 '15 at 21:51
  • Ok, do I risk something, like failure to compile also standard documents? I ask this because in the case I can substitute the \widecheck with another symbol while compiling on the desktop, and return to it for the definitive compilation of the document I'm working on, which will take place for sure on the laptop. – afullo Jul 06 '15 at 21:58
  • I think the risk is very low. However, it is obviously not non-existent. Nothing is. Moreover, we don't really know what state your installations are in - if you've been copying bunches of files from one to the other and/or similar things, then we basically have an unknown state. I would install texlive-full first on the desktop. That way, you at least have the laptop where everything works if all else fails. If that goes OK, do the same on the laptop. Longer term, consider installing vanilla from upstream. Then you can have multiple editions installed for safety. – cfr Jul 06 '15 at 22:15
  • Ok. It's 1 GB to be downloaded and 2 GB to be installed, so I will do it later, but such a dimension suggests actually that, excluding maybe some exotic configurations, that are likely not the case of the documents on which I'm putting and I will put my hands on, all the standards will be included in the compiler with this installation. So I will try definitely this. Thanks to both of you! – afullo Jul 06 '15 at 22:27

0 Answers0