Hi Deri, At 2022-06-22T21:30:25+0100, Deri wrote: > I think I have sussed what might be happening. In the port build the > standard fonts get built because of the addition of > /usr/local/share/fonts/ghostscript to the Foundry file yesterday. None > of the U fonts get built because this make rule deletes half the > foundry file before BuildFoundries is run:- > > font/devpdf/Foundry: $(devpdf_srcdir)/Foundry.in > $(AM_V_at)$(MKDIR_P) $(top_builddir)/font/devpdf/ > if HAVE_URW_FONTS > $(AM_V_GEN)sed "s|[@]urwfontsdir[@]|$(urwfontsdir)|" \ > $(devpdf_srcdir)/Foundry.in >$@ > else > $(AM_V_GEN)sed "/BEGIN URW/,/END URW/d" \ > $(devpdf_srcdir)/Foundry.in >$@ > endif
Whoops. This sed-foolery was me, not very long ago.[1] > So if HAVE_URW_FONTS is not set when configure is run the U- fonts > will not be created. When configure is run the part which is meant to > check for the presence of the URW fonts, starts with:- > > groff_have_urw_fonts=no > if test "$AWK" != missing && test "$GHOSTSCRIPT" != missing > then This logic is much older, and went out with groff 1.22.4. > So it does not even do the tests if ghostscript is set to missing, > which I believe is the case with the port version. So even if you > supply the URW fonts directory to configure this directory is not > tested and HAVE_URW_FONTS remains false. If ghostscript is missing it > should just not run gs -h as part of collecting paths to search, but > still do the search on the remaining paths. "it" meaning the BuildFoundries script? > > Those files below http://schwarze.bsd.lv/tmp/urw/ > > of which i did not upload new versions did not change. > > > > > So you shouldn't need the --with-urw-fonts-dir flag any more. > > > > To make things work without --with-urw-fonts-dir, i need the > > additional patch shown below. Otherwise, ./configure won't > > find them, and BuildFoundries comes too late to fix that. > > Do you think i should commit and push that additional patch? > > I think the tests for awk and ghostscript need to just apply to the > line which uses those programs, not the whole section, but the patch > is good. I'm happy to change GROFF_URW_FONTS_CHECK in this manner, but I'll hold off until you or Ingo pushes his patch. Can you confirm that the "sed-foolery" should stay, if we improve our search for the URW fonts in the first place? > > It's hardly ideal to have this path written out verbatim at two > > independent places: we just experienced how it *will* get out of > > sync. But let's improve one thing at a time. > > I did add a --check flag to the BuildFoundries program, which checked > for all the required fonts and returned an exit status, but I hadn't > really thought it through, a bit of chicken and egg situation! I > suspect a new file containing possible paths which BuildFoundries > accesses, or the configure test pulls the paths from Foundry.in rather > than having them hard coded. This seems like an easy improvement as well--another piece of oddball data we can keep in font/devpdf. > Since the fonts don't appear in any of the directories yielded by "gs > -h" means that the person porting ghostscript for your system decided > to use the option to have the fonts embedded in the gs executable > (%rom%) rather than as separate font files. I'm not sure if there is > much advantage with modern hardware. Here's a chap asking where the > font files have gone:- > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/38331893/ghostscript-fonts-folder-removed-from-later-versions I wonder if we should detect this and warn about it. I've gotten pretty familiar with our Autoconf macros. Regards, Branden [1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/commit/?id=bf25f7ebf35c9ab384455edb1612494b4af46817
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
