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, 22:06 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
> Could it be that there is a good reason for the renaming?
Honestly, I have no idea.
> Might it affect some uses of the official font that we distort it? An
> example coming to my mind is Postscript files referencing a font without
> embedding it - produced on a host with the pristine font installed).
>
> Is there perhaps a way to "symlink" old FontName to new one - in TeX
> and/or in fontconfig or other places?
It should be no issue for Ghostscript and X11, as they map font names to
files via /etc/ghostscript/fontmap.d/10fonts-urw-base35.conf
and /etc/X11/fonts/Type1/fonts-urw-base35.scale respectively. It was,
however, an issue for fontconfig which works on font names. The rules
in /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-metric-aliases.conf did not apply anymore,
because they matched on font names. But i was able to fix this with
/etc/fonts/conf.d/31-fonts-urw-base35.conf which maps the old font names
to the new ones.
The only system that also uses this font and that I am not sure about
the effect of the changed FontName field is latex. That is why I kindly
ask Norbert to test the psnfss package with the new fonts. I will also
try to do some test, but will not get to it before Thursday (or even
next week).
> If we "hack" the font, should we then better change some font
> identifiers to ensure our flavor of the font is distinct from the
> pristine one?
I would add "+gs9.10" to the package version number then.
> To me it seems we have a chance of shipping a commercial grade font in
> its pristine form, and I worry that we ruin that opportunity.
That's really an important point! Let's see how latex reacts to the
mofified font names and then further discuss how to proceed.
Good night,
- Fabian
Reply to: