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

Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts

Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 20:06 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: 
> Why?  Sounds like a _very_ bad idea to me (no matter if others did 
> similar bad stuff in the past).

Because the font names may be hard coded somewhere (the internal
FontName and FontFamily fields, I am not talking about the file names). 

This is how it looks for the current gsfonts package:

~/Debian/gsfonts-8.11+urwcyr1.0.7~pre44$ grep -a 'FontName' *.pfb
a010013l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothicL-Book def
a010015l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothicL-Demi def
a010033l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothicL-BookObli def
a010035l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothicL-DemiObli def
b018012l.pfb:/FontName /URWBookmanL-Ligh def
b018015l.pfb:/FontName /URWBookmanL-DemiBold def
b018032l.pfb:/FontName /URWBookmanL-LighItal def
b018035l.pfb:/FontName /URWBookmanL-DemiBoldItal def
c059013l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchL-Roma def
c059016l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchL-Bold def
c059033l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchL-Ital def
c059036l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchL-BoldItal def
d050000l.pfb:/FontName /Dingbats def
n019003l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-Regu def
n019004l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-Bold def
n019023l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-ReguItal def
n019024l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-BoldItal def
n019043l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-ReguCond def
n019044l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-BoldCond def
n019063l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-ReguCondItal def
n019064l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-BoldCondItal def
n021003l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRomNo9L-Regu def
n021004l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRomNo9L-Medi def
n021023l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRomNo9L-ReguItal def
n021024l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRomNo9L-MediItal def
n022003l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMonL-Regu def
n022004l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMonL-Bold def
n022023l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMonL-ReguObli def
n022024l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMonL-BoldObli def
p052003l.pfb:/FontName /URWPalladioL-Roma def
p052004l.pfb:/FontName /URWPalladioL-Bold def
p052023l.pfb:/FontName /URWPalladioL-Ital def
p052024l.pfb:/FontName /URWPalladioL-BoldItal def
s050000l.pfb:/FontName /StandardSymL def
z003034l.pfb:/FontName /URWChanceryL-MediItal def

These are the values those fields carry since decades. Now, for the
updated release, URW decided to slightly modify those fields:

~/Debian/fonts-urw-base35$ grep -a 'FontName' *.pfb
a010013l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothic-Boo def
a010015l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothic-Dem def
a010033l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothic-BooObl def
a010035l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothic-DemObl def
b018012l.pfb:/FontName /BookmanURW-Lig def
b018015l.pfb:/FontName /BookmanURW-DemBol def
b018032l.pfb:/FontName /BookmanURW-LigIta def
b018035l.pfb:/FontName /BookmanURW-DemBolIta def
c059013l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchURW-Rom def
c059016l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchURW-Bol def
c059033l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchURW-Ita def
c059036l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchURW-BolIta def
d050000l.pfb:/FontName /Dingbats def
n019003l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSan-Reg def
n019004l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSan-Bol def
n019023l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSan-Ita def
n019024l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSan-BolIta def
n019043l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanNar-Reg def
n019044l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanNar-Bol def
n019063l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanNar-Ita def
n019064l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanNar-BolIta def
n021003l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRom-Reg def
n021004l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRom-Med def
n021023l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRom-Ita def
n021024l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRom-MedIta def
n022003l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMon-Reg def
n022004l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMon-Bol def
n022023l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMon-Obl def
n022024l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMon-BolObl def
p052003l.pfb:/FontName /PalladioURW-Rom def
p052004l.pfb:/FontName /PalladioURW-Bol def
p052023l.pfb:/FontName /PalladioURW-Ita def
p052024l.pfb:/FontName /PalladioURW-BolIta def
s050000l.pfb:/FontName /StandardSymL def
z003034l.pfb:/FontName /ChanceryURW-MedIta def

I am afraid these FontNames are expected and have even found them
hard-coded in texlive. Thus, I am considering to reset these fields back
to the values of the gsfonts package. Ghostscript has already done this
for the fonts in the Resource/Font directory to circumvent that exact
issue. They did also rename the font file names, but this is not what I
am talking about.
Reply to: