Re: build system: devpdf/download regression

[Ingo Schwarze]

Hi Branden,

thanks for your thorough explanation!

G. Branden Robinson wrote on Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 09:54:54AM -0500:
> At 2022-06-21T15:28:03+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:

[...]
>> But then i get this at build time:
>> 
>>   +BuildFoundries: warning: line 33: Unable to locate font(s) 
>> URWGothic-Demi.t1,URWGothic-Demi,URWGothicL-Demi,a010015l.pfb
>>   +BuildFoundries: warning: line 34: Unable to locate font(s) 
>> URWGothic-DemiOblique.t1,URWGothic-DemiOblique,URWGothicL-DemiObli,a010035l.pfb
>>   +BuildFoundries: warning: line 35: Unable to locate font(s) 
>> URWGothic-BookOblique.t1,URWGothic-BookOblique,URWGothicL-BookObli,a010033l.pfb
>>   [...]

> It looks like your Ghostscript font installation is out of sync with
> groff's expectations.  Is it subsetted in some way?  Here's what I have
> on my Debian bullseye-based system.[3]
> [3] https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/all/gsfonts/filelist

https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/print/ghostscript/gnu-fonts/pkg/PLIST?rev=HEAD

looks somewhat similar to me, except that the leading /usr/local/ is
omitted from the OpenBSD PLIST.

I also see this:

   $ ls /usr/local/share/fonts/ghostscript/a0100???.pfb
  /usr/local/share/fonts/ghostscript/a010013l.pfb
  /usr/local/share/fonts/ghostscript/a010015l.pfb
  /usr/local/share/fonts/ghostscript/a010033l.pfb
  /usr/local/share/fonts/ghostscript/a010035l.pfb

That's some of the files BuildFoundries appears to be looking for
without finding them, as quoted above.

For complete logs, see: http://schwarze.bsd.lv/tmp/urw/

To answer your specific question: i don't think it looks subsetted.

>> and many more similar messages, and then:
>>
>>   +BuildFoundries: warning: line 75: 
>>   +The path(s) used for searching:
>>   +ARRAY(0x23cef899970)

> Urp.  The form of that output is certainly bogus.  Did I break it in a
> recent change?  I'll check.

Deri already fixed that bug, and very quickly.
Thanks for that!

[...]
>>   +afmtodit: both Tcommaaccent and uni0162 map to u0054_0327 \
>>      at /usr/local/bin/afmtodit line 6555.
>>   +afmtodit: both tcommaaccent and uni0163 map to u0074_0327 \
>>      at /usr/local/bin/afmtodit line 6555.

> Let's come back to this issue later.  I think I understand it but first
> I'm curious to know what version of the gsfonts package (or equivalent)
> you have.

schwarze@isnote $ pkg_info ghostscript-fonts 
Information for inst:ghostscript-fonts-8.11p3
Comment:
35 standard PostScript fonts with Adobe name aliases
Required by:
ghostscript-9.55.0p1
xpdf-3.04p1v0
Description:
35 commercial-quality Type 1 basic PostScript fonts -- Times, 
Helvetica, Courier, Symbol, etc. A fonts.alias file is included that
maps the fonts to their relevant Adobe names.
Maintainer: The OpenBSD ports mailing-list <ports@openbsd.org>
WWW: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/doc/cvs/Fonts.htm

[...]
>> Do you think anybody might actually want to have these fonts?

> Yes, if they want to produce PDFs with groff and also want either to (1)
> follow present recommended best practice per Adobe or (2) use any fonts
> that aren't in the standard set (this is also documented in the
> gropdf(1) man page under "Usage").

OK, so let's consider that settled, i'll try to get the URW fonts into
our port if that's at all possible, and it now looks like it should be,
without impeding the important role of groff as a fundamental build
system tool.

>> If the answer is "no" then i guess i need to find a way to reliably
>> disable all the URW stuff such that it doesn't accidentally get
>> triggered depending on what someone might happen to have installed,
>> ideally also reducing the considerable noise that BuildFoundries
>> spews at build time.

> That sounds like adding a flag to our "configure" script.
> 
> --ignore-urw-fonts?  --without-urw-font-dir?

Doesn't --with-urw-fonts-dir=NONE already do that?
Then again, it sounds like it's not the direction that should be taken,
not in OpenBSD and probably not elsewhere either...

[...]
> First I want to add a regression test for this (and devhtml), so that
> we're sure all the font description files that _should_ get built
> unconditionally actually do.  URW foundry support for gropdf(1) is a
> layer on top of that.  The former stuff should never be broken, but
> that's what you found.

That sounds like a plan, doesn't it?  :)

Yours,
  Ingo