Follow-up Comment #9, bug #63018 (group groff):
Hi Dave,
[comment #8 comment #8:]
> To clarify: my objection isn't the stale afmtodit version
It is nevertheless a legitimate one. We should be dogfooding the font
description files that _afmtodit_ generates.
We also should not be advertising a file as automatically generated when it
was hand-crafted.
> (I doubt refreshing the file will change the data),
If you mean re-running it as of _groff_ 1.23.0 or recent Git, I agree:
probably not.
> but that the line claims afmtodit generated it at all: once Deri's ZD is
committed, precious little of its content will be from afmtodit.
I understood Deri as proposing to update "dingbats.map" _and_ regenerating the
ZD file using _afmtodit_ with it...
[comment #5 comment #5:]
> Probably the best way of doing this is by adding to dingbats.map, a suitable
one is attached (to replace the one in font/devps/generate). Also attached is
a replacement ZD file to be placed in fonts/devps.
...hence the characterization of the "ZD" file as supplementary; I assume it
was a demonstrator and/or a convenience for people who didn't want to fiddle
with coming up with an _afmtodit_ command invocation themselves.
> Doing make will propagate the changes to devpdf and when U-ZD is created it
will use the new dingbats.map.
This matches my understanding.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63018>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
