Re: Request for jgroff help
At Thu, 24 May 2001 10:14:26 +0100,
Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2001 at 11:58:52 +0900, Fumitoshi UKAI wrote:
> > At Wed, 23 May 2001 21:34:10 +0100,
> > Colin Watson wrote:
> > > That's fantastic. I'll revert all traces of the old patch from my
> > > sources so that yours applies cleanly.
> >
> > I found one bug in my previous patch. That one failed assertion
> > on src/roff/troff/node.cc line 3804 (node *word_space_node::copy())
> > Fixed version is groff_1.17-0.0.2.jgroff in the same directory.
>
> I think my main problem is still that the patch is very distinct from
> the main sources. What happens if you just remove all the #ifdef NIPPON
> ... #endif blocks apart from that in eucmac.h itself, and pick one
> sensible alternative where there are #ifdef NIPPON ... #else ... #endif
> blocks? Since the GNU standards say that the range of configuration
> options in GNU programs should be limited, this would be the best way to
> start persuading upstream to take the patch.
Hmm, I see. I'll try.
> I haven't decided yet how this is going to interact with my new
> packaging (see bug #53225). The programs in groff-base will be compiled
> with Japanese support, but since the Japanese fonts etc. are very large
> I doubt they'll go in the base system package. Depending on what
> fraction of the groff package they turn out to be, they'll either go in
> groff or in a separate groff-ja plug-in package.
Yes, I agree that Japanese fonts are large enough to put it in groff-base.
I think such files (/usr/share/groff/1.17/font/{dev*/{M,G},devnippon})
go in groff package, not in groff-ja plug-in.
Regards,
Fumitoshi UKAI
Reply to: