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

[G. Branden Robinson]

Follow-up Comment #48, bug #63808 (project groff):

Hi Deri,

[comment #40 comment #40:]
> > The question I was trying to ask was, "how do I simulate the scenario of
URW fonts being absent and Ghostscript being present on the Debian system I'm
using for testing?"
> Now, this a good question. So you have hidden your urw-fonts and you now
have dangly bits in ghostscript Font directory. cd
/usr/share/ghostscript/9.53.3/Resource and rename Font to oFont.Unpack the
file gs-fonts.tgz, which I have attached. This will recreate the Font
directory with the correct ghostscript supplied fonts (see
https://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=tree;f=Resource/Font;h=6e8be73a12fad07729f5e4a3f7c069d159ad6bfd;hb=HEAD)
which are the official ghostscript supplied versions, which debian ignores to
save about 5mb of disk space!

Unfortunately there is no such attachment to the bug.  Savannah may have
silently thrown it away as it did my attachment to comment #46.

But I can pull the files from
https://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=tree;f=Resource/Font;h=6e8be73a12fad07729f5e4a3f7c069d159ad6bfd
and dump them somewhere in a deliberately mangled Debian chroot.

On Debian, the libgs9-common package ships this empty directory:

/usr/share/ghostscript/9.53.3/Resource/Font

Your suggestion is I think to dump the fonts from the git repo URL above into
that directory.

Is that correct?

I will try that experiment, but if I have misunderstood your procedure, my
results will be invalid.

I'll let you know.




    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

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

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