[adding Deri since I have a question for him below] At 2026-07-23T17:07:22-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote: > An rc2 is now looking more likely to me than not for 1-2 C++ code > reasons upon which I'll elaborate soon.
I'm pleased to retract this ominously allusive statement. Neither of those problems appears to be of release-critical impact. https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68544 https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68552 My pessimism is bruised this day. It might still be worth rolling an RC2 this weekend, especially since Bruno prefers to use a distribution archive and has such a nice panoply of build environments. And there is still the Manjaro URW fonts test failure. Deri, I notice from Bruno's report on that[1] that the "URW" fonts come from a directory with "ghostscript" in its name. Is it possible some kind of old, stupefied, or quasi-broken fonts are present there, and we failed to detect their unuseful state for gropdf's full service level? Is there some way can test for such stupefaction without increasing our build-dependency burden? I do not have a Manjaro Linux environment readily available to explore; maybe you don't either. Can you suggest a test procedure to Bruno that might help us to improve our URW font detection macro?[2] Regards, Branden [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2026-07/msg00029.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2026-07/msg00034.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2026-07/msg00036.html [2] https://cgit.git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/m4/groff.m4?h=1.24.1#n323 (Sorry for the old tag; cgit.git.savannah.gnu.org is, for me, served by a stale mirror that is ~20 days out of date, and so it knows nothing of the '1.25.0.rc1' tag.)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
