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

[Deri James]

Follow-up Comment #35, bug #63808 (project groff):

[comment #29 comment #29:]
> Hi Deri,
> 
> My diagnosis in comment #28 appears to have been correct.
> 
> There is a problem with checking all 35 fonts in the default foundry for
gropdf in the "urw absent, gs present" scenario.
> 
> It seems the non-base-14 font descriptions are not being copied to
font/devpdf/

I referred to this in comment #12, you hobbled your test to make it pass! And
now you want to hobble it again:-

> So I guess this means that maybe the check-default-foundry.sh test needs to
be re-hobbled.

Wow!! Aren't you interested to work out why it only fails on your system? I
would guess it may be to do with you making the urw-fonts ”unavailable" to
do a ghostscript only run, thus making your links dangle, rather than a foul
debian plot!

If I look at libgs9-common it has fonts-urw-base35 as a dependency:-

dietpi@tvhnew:~ $ apt show libgs9-common
Package: libgs9-common
Version: 9.53.3~dfsg-7+deb11u2
Priority: optional
Section: libs
Source: ghostscript
Maintainer: Debian Printing Team <debian-printing@lists.debian.org>
Installed-Size: 3,108 kB
Depends: fonts-urw-base35 (>= 20200910)
Recommends: fonts-droid-fallback
Homepage: https://www.ghostscript.com/
Tag: role::shared-lib
Download-Size: 734 kB
APT-Manual-Installed: no
APT-Sources: https://deb.debian.org/debian bullseye/main arm64 Packages
Description: interpreter for the PostScript language and for PDF - common
files

> I think what this is is establishing is that the presence of the "gs"
command is a bad proxy for the presence of downloadable font file.

Did you think it was? No, it has always been a way of harvesting paths which
may contain suitable fonts.

> Distributors like Debian go out of their way to ensure that you can have
that executable on the system without the fonts being present.

I have seen evidence to the contrary, debian make the fonts a dependency of
ghostscript. Due to your testing methodology, you divorced the fonts from
ghostscript.

> And if the fonts are built into the executable--if I remember correctly,
this is the %rom% thing--then we don't have a good way of knowing whether this
is the case.  Not without writing a much more elaborate Autoconf test that
really uses Ghostscript to generate a PostScript document and then parses it,
perhaps.

I don't think I've seen the %rom% for 20 years and with the speed of modern
SSDs I can't really see anyone resurrecting it. I don't see how you you could
determine whether the original source of a font came from accessing a file or
internally by parsing postscript!

> Bertrand said he's available to tag RC3 tomorrow so what I think I will do
is internally modify check-default-foundry.sh to have two tests: one for the
base 14+EURO and one for the rest.  The test will be skipped if the remainder
are missing.  Maybe that will be enough of a clue to check things out for the
user who goes to the trouble of running "make check" at all.

This does not make any sense you are hobbling check-default-foundry.sh, so
that it does not fail if someone deletes/renames their fonts. If they do that
it should fail. As I say to all passing dogs: "Don't bifurcate on my lawn!".

Here's the listing of the ghostscript font directory on my system (non-debian,
real maniy files, no soft links here):-

[derij@pip build (master)]$ ll /usr/share/ghostscript/9.53.3/Resource/Font/
total 4448
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 152585 May 10  2022 C059-BdIta
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 146014 May 10  2022 C059-Bold
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 148928 May 10  2022 C059-Italic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 145084 May 10  2022 C059-Roman
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  43343 May 10  2022 D050000L
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 155992 May 10  2022 NimbusMonoPS-Bold
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 154177 May 10  2022 NimbusMonoPS-BoldItalic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 142983 May 10  2022 NimbusMonoPS-Italic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 140353 May 10  2022 NimbusMonoPS-Regular
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 133004 May 10  2022 NimbusRoman-Bold
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 140953 May 10  2022 NimbusRoman-BoldItalic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 142085 May 10  2022 NimbusRoman-Italic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 133527 May 10  2022 NimbusRoman-Regular
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 107795 May 10  2022 NimbusSans-Bold
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 123308 May 10  2022 NimbusSans-BoldItalic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 120927 May 10  2022 NimbusSans-Italic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 106239 May 10  2022 NimbusSansNarrow-Bold
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 109815 May 10  2022 NimbusSansNarrow-BoldOblique
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 107359 May 10  2022 NimbusSansNarrow-Oblique
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 104252 May 10  2022 NimbusSansNarrow-Regular
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 104001 May 10  2022 NimbusSans-Regular
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 162196 May 10  2022 P052-Bold
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 163906 May 10  2022 P052-BoldItalic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 161531 May 10  2022 P052-Italic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 159843 May 10  2022 P052-Roman
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root  31444 May 10  2022 StandardSymbolsPS
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 137163 May 10  2022 URWBookman-Demi
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 142686 May 10  2022 URWBookman-DemiItalic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 137614 May 10  2022 URWBookman-Light
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 143233 May 10  2022 URWBookman-LightItalic
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 100637 May 10  2022 URWGothic-Book
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 102403 May 10  2022 URWGothic-BookOblique
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 103428 May 10  2022 URWGothic-Demi
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 105110 May 10  2022 URWGothic-DemiOblique
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 166540 May 10  2022 Z003-MediumItalic

Thanks for your help, almost there, just un-bifurcate the check.


    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

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

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