> > > Using private, non-standard, or not-included fonts to > > > document the package with the fonts makes utterly no sense. > > > I agree and I can't understand Gunnar here. > > I think it's perfectly understandable. It's an advertising > document, intended to show off the capabilities of the program. > *Of course* you use the best resources you have for such a > purpose. If someone else is unwilling to put up the money > for similar results it's not the software's fault.
I mean it is not understandable that the repository is incosistent. I want to download it and type make--that's it. That he uses the best possible for documents on the web page is the best choice. That the troff code is available somewhere would also be good. But the way he packaged it is not ok in this special point. There would have been possibilities with putting an .if around it or something else... > All *roff programs I know are completely independent from X11 > and don't require it. (If it runs under cygwin, it might also > access all the fonts you buy with your Windows, or if you use > it on Mac OS, whatever Apple has decided to package with it.) Of course not X11. For the troff doc (from J. Osanna and BWK) I would suggest the traditional standard fonts. For the other documents Pierre-Jean has an idea for a replacement. Don't you agree with his proposal?
