Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-08-27 07:35:20) > There are three slightly different versions of these fonts installed > on a Debian system: > 1) gsfonts > 2) ghostscript [*] > 3) texlive-fonts-recommended > > The gsfonts package contains a fork of the fonts shipped with an > earlier version of ghostscript which was extended with cyrilic glyphs. > There are, however, claims that the latin range has also been > (unintentionally) touched as well. The texlive-fonts-recommended > package thus contains the pristine fonts from the ghostscript release > that the fonts in the gsfonts package were based on. Finally, the > ghostscript package for a long time also carried the cyrilic fork of > the fonts - though a different version than the one in the gsfonts > package - and reverted back to the original fonts as supplied by URW > in the 9.05 release. For the recent 9.09 release the fonts have been > updated by a new release of original supplier URW (e.g. fixing the > width of one glyph that had to be patched in the texlive set before). > > The drawback is that ghostscript does not ship the complete set of > fonts. They do only ship the .pfb files and are leaving out the .afm > metric files that are useless for ghostscript, but necessary for > everything else. Fortunately, they are distributing the complete set > in http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/fonts/ . > > My idea is to package this set of fonts in a fonts-ghostscript > package, make ghostscript and texlive-fonts-recommended depend on it, > turn gsfonts (and gsfonts-x11, while we are at it) into dummy packages > depending on it and providing symlinks. So all users of these fonts > could benefit from the latest upstream improvements and would not need > to carry around their own slightly modified fork of the fonts. What do > you think about it? Yes, I noticed your emails about that at the Ghostscript project earlier this month, and also seem to recall you raising this IRL in New York. I don't like how the Ghostscript project stuff lots of things into their project. Specifically about the URW++ fonts they lack proper licensing - also separately packaged in those zip files. I filed bug#720906 and emailed the Ghostscript project about that yesterday. Those URW++ fonts - now that they are cleaned up - are better tracked directly from URW++, in my opinion. Yesterday I sent an email to URW++ asking them for a download URL. So generally I agree with your plan - just would prefer fonts-urw++ instead of fonts-ghostscript. > [*] Please note that the fonts shiped in > /usr/share/ghostscript/9.05/Resource/Font in the libgs9-common package > are not even used at all and could get safely removed. Instead, they > are mapped to the fonts in the gsfonts package by means of the > /etc/ghostscript/fontmap.d/10gsfonts.conf file. I totally agree we should get rid of code copies. I have hesitated dropping them for now, as I am afraid some internal Ghostscript code might bypass the font path and rely on the specific location. Hm. I am now at the #ghostscript irc channel, so will simply ask... :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature