Follow-up Comment #48, bug #63808 (project groff): Hi Deri,
[comment #40 comment #40:] > > The question I was trying to ask was, "how do I simulate the scenario of URW fonts being absent and Ghostscript being present on the Debian system I'm using for testing?" > Now, this a good question. So you have hidden your urw-fonts and you now have dangly bits in ghostscript Font directory. cd /usr/share/ghostscript/9.53.3/Resource and rename Font to oFont.Unpack the file gs-fonts.tgz, which I have attached. This will recreate the Font directory with the correct ghostscript supplied fonts (see https://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=tree;f=Resource/Font;h=6e8be73a12fad07729f5e4a3f7c069d159ad6bfd;hb=HEAD) which are the official ghostscript supplied versions, which debian ignores to save about 5mb of disk space! Unfortunately there is no such attachment to the bug. Savannah may have silently thrown it away as it did my attachment to comment #46. But I can pull the files from https://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=tree;f=Resource/Font;h=6e8be73a12fad07729f5e4a3f7c069d159ad6bfd and dump them somewhere in a deliberately mangled Debian chroot. On Debian, the libgs9-common package ships this empty directory: /usr/share/ghostscript/9.53.3/Resource/Font Your suggestion is I think to dump the fonts from the git repo URL above into that directory. Is that correct? I will try that experiment, but if I have misunderstood your procedure, my results will be invalid. I'll let you know. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63808> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
