On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> wrote: > Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-08-27 07:35:20) >> There are three slightly different versions of these fonts installed >> on a Debian system: >> 1) gsfonts >> 2) ghostscript [*] >> 3) texlive-fonts-recommended >> >> The gsfonts package contains a fork of the fonts shipped with an >> earlier version of ghostscript which was extended with cyrilic glyphs. >> There are, however, claims that the latin range has also been >> (unintentionally) touched as well. The texlive-fonts-recommended >> package thus contains the pristine fonts from the ghostscript release >> that the fonts in the gsfonts package were based on. Finally, the >> ghostscript package for a long time also carried the cyrilic fork of >> the fonts - though a different version than the one in the gsfonts >> package - and reverted back to the original fonts as supplied by URW >> in the 9.05 release. For the recent 9.09 release the fonts have been >> updated by a new release of original supplier URW (e.g. fixing the >> width of one glyph that had to be patched in the texlive set before). >> >> The drawback is that ghostscript does not ship the complete set of >> fonts. They do only ship the .pfb files and are leaving out the .afm >> metric files that are useless for ghostscript, but necessary for >> everything else. Fortunately, they are distributing the complete set >> in http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/fonts/ . >> >> My idea is to package this set of fonts in a fonts-ghostscript >> package, make ghostscript and texlive-fonts-recommended depend on it, >> turn gsfonts (and gsfonts-x11, while we are at it) into dummy packages >> depending on it and providing symlinks. So all users of these fonts >> could benefit from the latest upstream improvements and would not need >> to carry around their own slightly modified fork of the fonts. What do >> you think about it?
You said that tex-gyre are superior font because better maintened, I will personnally in this case switch directly to tex-gyre as base 35 fonts. In the worst case, I will offert two package that provide base 35 fonts: - urw 35 - tex-gyre and: - ask a question to use tex-gyre (low priority) with default for new install yes, for upgrade no What do you think ? Bastien > > Yes, I noticed your emails about that at the Ghostscript project earlier > this month, and also seem to recall you raising this IRL in New York. > > I don't like how the Ghostscript project stuff lots of things into their > project. Specifically about the URW++ fonts they lack proper licensing > - also separately packaged in those zip files. I filed bug#720906 and > emailed the Ghostscript project about that yesterday. > > Those URW++ fonts - now that they are cleaned up - are better tracked > directly from URW++, in my opinion. Yesterday I sent an email to URW++ > asking them for a download URL. > > So generally I agree with your plan - just would prefer fonts-urw++ > instead of fonts-ghostscript. > > >> [*] Please note that the fonts shiped in >> /usr/share/ghostscript/9.05/Resource/Font in the libgs9-common package >> are not even used at all and could get safely removed. Instead, they >> are mapped to the fonts in the gsfonts package by means of the >> /etc/ghostscript/fontmap.d/10gsfonts.conf file. > > I totally agree we should get rid of code copies. I have hesitated > dropping them for now, as I am afraid some internal Ghostscript code > might bypass the font path and rely on the specific location. > > Hm. I am now at the #ghostscript irc channel, so will simply ask... :-) > > > - Jonas > > -- > * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt > * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ > > [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
