[bug #63808] configure gives incorrect information regarding pdf generation

[Deri James]

Follow-up Comment #44, bug #63808 (project groff):

Many thanks for the typescript. It looks like a successful groff build, make
succeeded and make check successfully reported that ghostscript fonts were not
found. Can you tell whether the groff-man-pages.pdf was Ok, apart from the
missing fonts.

Can we improve this?

You could test if the fonts are likely to be "in built" by looking for the
line:-

"Initialization files are compiled into the executable."

In the output of gs -h, and warn gropdf will be in restricted mode (if
additionally URW fonts are not found as well). The same message as used for
scenario 00.

Another improvement would be drop the -P-e if we know we are in scenario 00,
but still attempt to produce the pdf documentation, this will remove the
warnings about failing to embed fonts in the build.

I would be very interested in receiving a copy of the gs executable from
Solaris, even though it is over 9 years out of date. There is a slim chance I
may be able to extract the fonts and put them in devpdf directory. Worth a
look.

Now the pressure is off for rc3, I hope you can do a proper ghostscript only
test on your debian system and report the results.

Now back to the logic games! 

> > > Then you are saying "urw absent, gs present" is not a supported groff
configuration scenario.
> >
> > No I am certainly not! Maybe representing the logic as a truth table may
help you:-

> > *Detab gropdf-font-checks
> > C Is Ghostscript available      Y  -
> >   Are URW fonts available       -  Y
> > A Run check-default-foundry.sh  X  X
> >   Run check-urw-foundry.sh      -  X

> It does not, for reasons I'll get to below.
[...]
> I was thinking that because URW donated some fonts to Ghostscript, they
should always be available on a Ghostscript installation, though the user may
have an alternative/forked/more-up-to-date URW font collection that they would
prefer to use.  This makes for two separate dependencies, so 2^2 configuration
combinations. 
You are perfectly correct there are 4 input scenarios but they produce just 3
results (standard/enhanced/restricted gropdf), and so we have 3 corresponding
test scenarios:-

If standard mode expected - scenario 01 (run check-default-foundry.sh)
If enhanced mode expected - scenario 1x (run check-default-foundry.sh AND
check-urw-foundry.sh)
If restricted mode expected - scenario 00 (no check required because the base
14 fonts are always available to gropdf).





    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?63808>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/