[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: build system: devpdf/download regression

From: G. Branden Robinson
Subject: Re: build system: devpdf/download regression
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 16:29:29 -0500

Hi Deri,

At 2022-06-22T21:30:25+0100, Deri wrote:
> I think I have sussed what might be happening. In the port build the
> standard fonts get built because of the addition of
> /usr/local/share/fonts/ghostscript to the Foundry file yesterday. None
> of the U fonts get built because this make rule deletes half the
> foundry file before BuildFoundries is run:-
> font/devpdf/Foundry: $(devpdf_srcdir)/
>       $(AM_V_at)$(MKDIR_P) $(top_builddir)/font/devpdf/
>       $(AM_V_GEN)sed "s|[@]urwfontsdir[@]|$(urwfontsdir)|" \
>         $(devpdf_srcdir)/ >$@
> else
>       $(AM_V_GEN)sed "/BEGIN URW/,/END URW/d" \
>         $(devpdf_srcdir)/ >$@
> endif

Whoops.  This sed-foolery was me, not very long ago.[1]

> So if HAVE_URW_FONTS is not set when configure is run the U- fonts
> will not be created. When configure is run the part which is meant to
> check for the presence of the URW fonts, starts with:-
>   groff_have_urw_fonts=no
>   if test "$AWK" != missing && test "$GHOSTSCRIPT" != missing
>   then

This logic is much older, and went out with groff 1.22.4.

> So it does not even do the tests if ghostscript is set to missing,
> which I believe is the case with the port version. So even if you
> supply the URW fonts directory to configure this directory is not
> tested and HAVE_URW_FONTS remains false. If ghostscript is missing it
> should just not run gs -h as part of collecting paths to search, but
> still do the search on the remaining paths.

"it" meaning the BuildFoundries script?

> > Those files below
> > of which i did not upload new versions did not change.
> > 
> > > So you shouldn't need the --with-urw-fonts-dir flag any more.
> > 
> > To make things work without --with-urw-fonts-dir, i need the
> > additional patch shown below.  Otherwise, ./configure won't
> > find them, and BuildFoundries comes too late to fix that.
> > Do you think i should commit and push that additional patch?
> I think the tests for awk and ghostscript need to just apply to the
> line which uses those programs, not the whole section, but the patch
> is good.

I'm happy to change GROFF_URW_FONTS_CHECK in this manner, but I'll hold
off until you or Ingo pushes his patch.

Can you confirm that the "sed-foolery" should stay, if we improve our
search for the URW fonts in the first place?

> > It's hardly ideal to have this path written out verbatim at two
> > independent places: we just experienced how it *will* get out of
> > sync.  But let's improve one thing at a time.
> I did add a --check flag to the BuildFoundries program, which checked
> for all the required fonts and returned an exit status, but I hadn't
> really thought it through, a bit of chicken and egg situation! I
> suspect a new file containing possible paths which BuildFoundries
> accesses, or the configure test pulls the paths from rather
> than having them hard coded.

This seems like an easy improvement as well--another piece of oddball
data we can keep in font/devpdf.

> Since the fonts don't appear in any of the directories yielded by "gs
> -h" means that the person porting ghostscript for your system decided
> to use the option to have the fonts embedded in the gs executable
> (%rom%) rather than as separate font files. I'm not sure if there is
> much advantage with modern hardware. Here's a chap asking where the
> font files have gone:-

I wonder if we should detect this and warn about it.  I've gotten pretty
familiar with our Autoconf macros.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]