On Wednesday, 28 January 2026 21:04:57 GMT G. Branden Robinson wrote: > At 2026-01-28T20:51:00+0000, Deri wrote: > > On Wednesday, 28 January 2026 08:31:30 GMT G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > > ---snip--- > > > * groff's "configure" script now supports a "--without-urw-fonts" > > > > > > option to better support systems that don't require full PDF support > > > from groff. > > > > A strange choice for "Top of the Pops". PDF fonts in 1.23.0 were > > handled automatically, if URW fonts were not installed you got the > > same result as if --without-urw-fonts was specified for 1.24. It was a > > bit "noisy" in that numerous warnings would appear during the build, > > illustrating gropdf's ability to produce pdfs would be less than a > > full service. > > Can you clarify whether your grievance is with "--without-urw-fonts" > existing at all, or with its presence as a "headline" item?
Well I suppose it is both since I don't understand why you promoted normal warnings to abort a build, I am unlikely to understand why a sticking plaster solution deserves such prominence. > You seem to be justifying the latter with an argument against the > former, and the latter is the topic under discussion. Perhaps, if you explained what "slight" or "chunky" things go wrong, I might agree --without-urw-fonts is the best thing since sliced salami. There could be a huge problem of which I'm unaware. > I'm not at all wedded to this (brand new) configuration option as a > headline item. But I get the feeling that throwing it out would not > suffice to satisfy you. You are perspicacious. :-) Cheers Deri > Regards, > Branden
