Follow-up Comment #11, bug #61423 (project groff):
[comment #9 comment #9:]
> I think option #2 would be more in line with what Dave was already doing.
I wasn't _doing_ anything at all with that directive line. I wasn't supplying
a path to any parameter of my .fp calls; the files in question all live in a
place groff looks by default (/usr/share/groff/site-font).
But it's worth noting that I also didn't handcraft the font description file
in question. Some toolchain did it -- offhand, I don't know what (though I
could probably track it down), except that it's not Peter's install-font.sh,
because that's my usual tool, and it's generated a bunch of other font
description files that don't have paths in the "name" directive -- and the
toolchain is not one of my invention, so other people using the same tool(s)
will have ended up with paths in their "name" directives too.
That's not a solid argument against disallowing such paths, if we deem that
the best thing for groff; but if we do, it suggests another bug report needs
to be filed against whatever tool is putting full paths there.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61423>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
