Bug#1006974: cjk-latex: font faces (bold, ital) for latin fonts missing when using CJKutf8

Curtis Dean Smith

unread,

Mar 9, 2022, 1:50:03 PM3/9/22

to

Package: cjk-latex
Version: 4.8.4+git20170127-4
Severity: important

Dear Maintainer,

When running a document with CJKutf.sty that rendered properly on Bullseye, the
\emph, \textbf, etc faces now appear as regular roman. If I comment out the
\begin{CJK}{UTF8}{bsmi}, \end{CJK}, and all Chinese in the document, the \emph,
\textbf, etc. faces render properly.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bookworm/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.16.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages cjk-latex depends on:
ii latex-cjk-common 4.8.4+git20170127-4

cjk-latex recommends no packages.

Versions of packages cjk-latex suggests:
ii latex-cjk-all 4.8.4+git20170127-4

-- no debconf information
~

Hilmar Preuße

unread,

Mar 9, 2022, 6:30:03 PM3/9/22

to

On 3/9/22 19:37, Curtis Dean Smith wrote:

Hi,

> When running a document with CJKutf.sty that rendered properly on
> Bullseye, the emph, textbf, etc faces now appear as regular roman.
> If I comment out the begin{CJK}{UTF8}{bsmi}, end{CJK}, and all
> Chinese in the document, the emph, textbf, etc. faces render
> properly.
>

I'm pretty sure the issue is not in cjk as the upstream code for cjk did
not change between oldstable and stable. Could you provide a minimal
example to test the issue?

Hilmar
--
Testmail

Danai SAE-HAN

unread,

Mar 9, 2022, 7:30:03 PM3/9/22

to

Hi Curtis

That is indeed strange, because as Hilmar pointed out, the upstream code of CJK has not changed for years.

Which TeX engine are you running?

A minimal working example would be helpful.

Regards

--

Danai

Hilmar Preuße

unread,

Mar 10, 2022, 2:50:04 AM3/10/22

to

Am 10.03.2022 um 01:21 teilte Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) mit:

Hi all,

> That is indeed strange, because as Hilmar pointed out, the upstream code of
> CJK has not changed for years.
>
> Which TeX engine are you running?
> A minimal working example would be helpful.
>

Not sure if this is helpful at all: I was able the reproduce the issue
using pdfLaTeX on a MikTeX as of November last year. After a round of
updates the issue is gone.

I'll try using Debian unstable.

H.
--
sigfault

OpenPGP_signature

Hilmar Preuße

unread,

Mar 11, 2022, 6:30:03 PM3/11/22

to

Am 10.03.2022 um 17:11 teilte Curtis Dean Smith mit:

Hi Curtis,

> I am using Debian testing which defaults to pdfLaTeX.
>
There is a new cjk release on CTAN. ;-)

I'll try to package that version ASAP.

Hilmar
--
#206401 http://counter.li.org

OpenPGP_signature

Curtis Dean Smith

unread,

Mar 11, 2022, 7:40:03 PM3/11/22

to

Super! Thank you!

Curtis

> On Mar 11, 2022, at 15:17, Hilmar Preuße <hil...@web.de> wrote:
>
> Am 10.03.2022 um 17:11 teilte Curtis Dean Smith mit:

Hilmar Preuße

unread,

Mar 13, 2022, 4:50:04 AM3/13/22

to

Am 10.03.2022 um 01:21 teilte Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) mit:

Hi Danai, hi Norbert,

I'm on the way to package the new version of cjk.

Do we still need "cjk-latex"? AFAICT it was introduced as transitional
package in 2006. I tend to drop it now.

Hilmar

> That is indeed strange, because as Hilmar pointed out, the upstream code of
> CJK has not changed for years.
>
> Which TeX engine are you running?
> A minimal working example would be helpful.
>

--
sigfault

OpenPGP_signature