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

[Deri James]

Follow-up Comment #37, bug #63808 (project groff):

> Here's what I need to know.

> A) Is it even valid to try to test gropdf with 'gs' available but "no URW
fonts"?  You explained in comment #7 that URW fonts were donated to
Ghostscript.  That they might be forked or separately maintained in variant
forms is not strongly relevant, except for the file name and directory changes
that have proven otherwise frustrating.

Definitely. Although in debian the fonts associated with ghostscript are the
same files as you would get if you installed the URW fonts as a separate
package without ghostscript, in other linux distros such as the one I use,
they are different versions. You can just install ghostscript and the fonts
are available, without the relevent afm files, no symlinks. So anyone using a
distro like mine who installs ghostscript (common) will be able to have
standard gropdf. On your system (debian) if ghostscript is installed you will
always get extended gropdf, so I understand your question, but we have to
cater for distros which don't follow the debian way.

Version could be relevant if glyph coverage is different.

> B) If it is, what does that test scenario look like?

As in comment #3, but I will update it to current nomenclature.

if gs or urw
    run check-default-foundry.sh
    if urw
        run check-urw-foundry.sh
    end
end

In both cases you are looking for the 35 groff fonts, and additionally EURO in
the default foundry. If any are not found then the test fails.



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

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

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