Follow-up Comment #24, bug #65974 (group groff): More distributions are likely to drop installing afm files, now that postscript is no longer supported. Ghostscript has not needed them for years since the meta-data in the afm files is baked into the executable. The reason we need them is because our font files only contain the information for the original 257 glyphs defined for the the original postscript language. Current URW fonts have a much larger glyph repertoire, which is why we need the corresponding afm files so that afmtodit can generate the appropriate groff fonts to create the U- fonts which have cyrillic and other glyphs not present in our standard fonts.
Gropdf supports our standard fonts (i.e. TR), reduced to the base 14 fonts if
the type 1 fonts are not found, and the URW fonts (i.e. U-TR) if the urw-fonts
AND the afm files are found. So in the case of Arch the full 35 standard fonts
would be available (since the .t1 fonts are found through scraping gs -h) but
not the 35 extra U- fonts (because the afm files are lacking).
> Deri, what do you think?
First, maybe it is a mistake to make this warning critical, i.e. abort the
build run. Perhaps the better option may be to suppress the individual message
and report at the end that only the standard fonts are available.
Also, I think we need a conversation on where we want to go with the future of
groff with fonts. Some of this is mentioned in bug #60930.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?65974>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
