Re: Missing links to the URW+ fonts in 8.64's fontmap

[Ludovic Courtès]

Salut Didier,

Sorry for the late reply.

Didier Link <address@hidden> writes:

> 2008-08-12 23:44:53.919723 Ray Johnston
>       Remove 'Actual Fonts' references in the Fontmap that connected
>       the URW FontName to an 8.3 filename that we no longer use.
>       [Resource/Init/Fontmap.GS]

Who is "we"?  :-)

`gnu-gs-fonts-std-6.0.tar.gz' from gnu.org still uses the 8.3 file names
AFAICS.

[...]

> Can you send the output of 'gs --help' for looking at the Search path
> configured for your version ?

Here is the relevant part:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Search path:
   . : %rom%Resource/Init/ : %rom%lib/ :
   
/nix/store/b69pcm9dr47b7xgsh17xnqblzby2gbsq-ghostscript-8.64.0/share/ghostscript/8.64/Resource/Init
 :
   
/nix/store/b69pcm9dr47b7xgsh17xnqblzby2gbsq-ghostscript-8.64.0/share/ghostscript/8.64/lib
 :
   
/nix/store/b69pcm9dr47b7xgsh17xnqblzby2gbsq-ghostscript-8.64.0/share/ghostscript/8.64/Resource/Font
 :
   
/nix/store/b69pcm9dr47b7xgsh17xnqblzby2gbsq-ghostscript-8.64.0/share/ghostscript/fonts
 :
   
/nix/store/b69pcm9dr47b7xgsh17xnqblzby2gbsq-ghostscript-8.64.0/share/fonts/default/ghostscript
 :
   
/nix/store/b69pcm9dr47b7xgsh17xnqblzby2gbsq-ghostscript-8.64.0/share/fonts/default/Type1
 :
   
/nix/store/b69pcm9dr47b7xgsh17xnqblzby2gbsq-ghostscript-8.64.0/share/fonts/default/TrueType
 :
   /usr/lib/DPS/outline/base : /usr/openwin/lib/X11/fonts/Type1 :
   /usr/openwin/lib/X11/fonts/TrueType :
   /nix/store/jl4fbnysss51cq26swdhyjsc5z6mvsgv-cups-1.3.10/share/cups/fonts
Initialization files are compiled into the executable.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

The fonts from `gnu-gs-fonts-std-6.0.tar.gz' and
`gnu-gs-fonts-other-6.0.tar.gz' are all right under
/nix/store/b69pcm9dr47b7xgsh17xnqblzby2gbsq-ghostscript-8.64.0/share/ghostscript/fonts/.


> Artifex has incorporated the URW fonts directly in the Resources loaded
> in memory by gs, I've not included this fonts because I don't want to
> have more included package in the executable than necessary.
>
> Any comments about this option ?

Hmm, I'm afraid I don't sufficiently understand the pros and cons of
this option.  I suppose 90% of the PostScript files that get interpreted
will actually need some of the URW+ fonts, so maybe it makes sense to
have them bundled with the executable, provided it's noticeably faster
than loading them from the files.

Thanks,
Ludo'.