Hi Alexis, At 2026-01-30T14:45:53+0100, Alexis (surryhill) wrote: > it seems to me that 1.24.0.rc2 may have introduced a regression > regarding the URW fonts: > Using the same configure flags, i.e. including --with-urw-fonts-dir=, > as with a previous 1.24.0.rc1 build, configure does not find the > URW fonts: checking for URW fonts in Type 1/PFB format... none found
I think I identified the flaw. The fix is a one-liner. $ git show commit 07af25e43e362dd6fbf22882d11b0e34cf2fae27 (HEAD -> master) Author: G. Branden Robinson <[email protected]> Date: Tue Feb 3 09:49:49 2026 -0600 XXX: one-liner, fix Alexis issue diff --git a/m4/groff.m4 b/m4/groff.m4 index f1d2d2193..1fb124eef 100644 --- a/m4/groff.m4 +++ b/m4/groff.m4 @@ -333,7 +333,6 @@ AC_REQUIRE([GROFF_URW_FONTS_PATH]) AC_REQUIRE([GROFF_GHOSTSCRIPT_PATH]) groff_have_urw_fonts=no - urwfontsdir= if test "$urwfontsupport" != no then AC_MSG_CHECKING([for URW fonts in Type 1/PFB format]) If you use `--with-urw-fonts-dir=FOO`, then groff's "configure" script will look in directory FOO and _only_ in FOO for the URW font files. It does not fall back to its lengthy built-in search path. An advantage to this semantic(s) is that it also makes it easier for developers to test the "basic" and "intermediate" gropdf support level scenarios. If you have a system where the URW fonts are in one of the places our "configure" script expects to find them, you can say, e.g., "--with-urw-fonts-dir=/" or "--with-urw-fonts-dir=/tmp" to hide them. The bug was the unconditional blanking of the `urwfontsdir` shell variable, which made subsequent logic decide that no `--with-urw-fonts-dir` option had been specified, so this Autoconf macro used the built-in search path anyway, which on an exotic system like Nix that puts things in non-FHS locations, means the URW fonts are unlikely to be found. Thanks for the report. Regards, Branden
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
