[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: URW++ OTF only optional?

From: Martin Neubauer
Subject: Re: URW++ OTF only optional?
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 17:41:41 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0

On 19/08/2020 16:43, Jonas Hahnfeld wrote:
> switched to
> using URW++ / C059 fonts by default. However, it looks like configure
> only requires the previous default, TeX Gyre; URW++ / C059 is optional.
> Is that intended and / or correct?
I'm not quite sure about the intentions, but in my opinion this way
gives the least complications. Even before making them the default,
configure used to automatically install the URW++ fonts if present, but
providing the option not to do that. This way both the needs of
self-contained packages (via GUB) and of distribution-specific ones can
be met.

> On a more general note, I wonder why the build system is installing the
> fonts by default. I get that for prebuilt binaries (from GUB), but for
> Linux distributions it actually means I have the fonts multiple times
> (see below). Is there a compelling reason? AFAICT this was started very
> long ago when there was a need to convert available fonts to a format
> understood by LilyPond (but my archeology might be completely wrong
> here).
As I understand the matter, lilypond looks up fonts in the system font
path (plus its own local font directory structure.) However, there are
some systems where the ghostscript fonts aren't accessible via the
standard system mechanism. Given the presence of distributions where
that is the case (if my interpretation of your list of font paths is
correct), combined with TeX Gyre no longer being the default, it might
actually be a good idea to make installing those fonts optional as well.


Jarmonicator with screwdriver.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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