Re: Configuring groff 1.23.0 on Fedora 39 fails to find the URW base 35 fonts
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 15:19:41 -0500, Deri wrote: > Have you tried running configure with the flag:- > > --with-urw-fonts-dir=/usr/share/fonts/urw-base35 As was mentioned in my original message to the list, I did use that option to successfully configure groff which lead to a successful build and install. I'll note that the urw-base35 fonts are *not* part of the Fedora ghostscript package. It depends on the libgs package, which depends on the urw-base35-fonts package, which depends on 11 other packages that contain the various urw-base35 fonts. There are a few other other urw-base35-* packages, including one that provides legacy X11 fonts. I'll also note that the Fedora packages for groff provide version 1.23, but I always install my own copies of of groff, and usually have several different versions installed at the same time. -- T. Kurt Bond, tkurtb...@gmail.com, tkurtbond.github.io
Re: Configuring groff 1.23.0 on Fedora 39 fails to find the URW base 35 fonts
On Monday, 5 February 2024 16:51:29 GMT T. Kurt Bond wrote: > On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 04:52:31 -0500, > > "G. Branden Robinson" wrote: > > Do any of the following directories exist on Fedora 39 and contain .afm > > files alongside the fonts proper? > > > > _list_paths="\ > > > > /usr/share/fonts/type1/gsfonts/ \ > > /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/ \ > > /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/adobestd35/ \ > > /usr/share/fonts/type1/urw-base35/ \ > > /opt/local/share/fonts/urw-fonts/ \ > > /usr/local/share/fonts/ghostscript/" > > No, none of those directories exist. > > However, /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35 does exist and does contain .afm files. Hi, Have you tried running configure with the flag:- --with-urw-fonts-dir=/usr/share/fonts/urw-base35 Cheers Deri
Re: Configuring groff 1.23.0 on Fedora 39 fails to find the URW base 35 fonts
On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 04:52:31 -0500, "G. Branden Robinson" wrote: > Do any of the following directories exist on Fedora 39 and contain .afm > files alongside the fonts proper? > > _list_paths="\ > /usr/share/fonts/type1/gsfonts/ \ > /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/ \ > /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/adobestd35/ \ > /usr/share/fonts/type1/urw-base35/ \ > /opt/local/share/fonts/urw-fonts/ \ > /usr/local/share/fonts/ghostscript/" No, none of those directories exist. However, /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35 does exist and does contain .afm files. -- T. Kurt Bond, tkurtb...@gmail.com, tkurtbond.github.io
Re: Configuring groff 1.23.0 on Fedora 39 fails to find the URW base 35 fonts
Hi Kurt, At 2023-12-18T15:40:13-0500, T. Kurt Bond wrote: > I was building groff 1.23.0 on Fedora 39 and found that its > configure script didn't find the URW base 35 fonts, although they are > installed and the directory that they are in - > /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35 - is reported by gs -h: > > GPL Ghostscript 10.02.1 (2023-11-01) > Copyright (C) 2023 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights reserved. > [Irrelevant -h output elided.] > Search path: >/usr/share/ghostscript/Resource/Init : /usr/share/ghostscript/lib : >/usr/share/ghostscript/Resource/Font : /usr/share/ghostscript/fonts : >/usr/share/fonts/urw-base35 : /usr/share/fonts/google-droid-sans-fonts > Ghostscript is also using fontconfig to search for font files > > I continued with the '--with-urw-fonts-dir=DIR' option, but thought > I'd mention the problem. At 2023-12-19T13:02:54-0500, T. Kurt Bond wrote: > On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:49:10 -0500, > "G. Branden Robinson" wrote: > > First thing to know is, did that ./configure option fix this build in > > this respect? > > Yes. The build and installation finished correctly, and the resulting > groff works. Okay, so the issue must be in our Autoconf macro that attempts to locate these fonts. I'll share two, starting with the simpler one that supports the `--with-urw-fonts-dir` option noted above, so that some variable references are clear. # Make URW font directory configurable. AC_DEFUN([GROFF_URW_FONTS_PATH], [ AC_ARG_WITH([urw-fonts-dir], [AS_HELP_STRING([--with-urw-fonts-dir=DIR], [search for URW PostScript Type 1 fonts in DIR])], [urwfontsdir="$withval"]) ]) # Check for availability of URW fonts in the directory specified by the # user (see GROFF_URW_FONTS_PATH above). We do NOT search the path of # directories built into Ghostscript because those fonts lack the # corresponding AFM files we need to generate groff font description # files; see afmtodit(1). Ghostscript's own fonts are treated as the # "default foundry" and we already provide descriptions of them in # font/devpdf (along with groff's EURO font). AC_DEFUN([GROFF_URW_FONTS_CHECK], [ AC_REQUIRE([GROFF_URW_FONTS_PATH]) AC_REQUIRE([GROFF_GHOSTSCRIPT_PATH]) groff_have_urw_fonts=no AC_MSG_CHECKING([for URW fonts in Type 1/PFB format]) dnl Keep this list in sync with font/devpdf/Foundry.in. _list_paths="\ /usr/share/fonts/type1/gsfonts/ \ /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/ \ /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/adobestd35/ \ /usr/share/fonts/type1/urw-base35/ \ /opt/local/share/fonts/urw-fonts/ \ /usr/local/share/fonts/ghostscript/" if test -n "$urwfontsdir" then _list_paths="$urwfontsdir" fi dnl Keep this list of font file names in sync with the corresponding dnl entry in font/devpdf/util/BuildFoundries.pl. for k in $_list_paths do for _font_file in \ URWGothic-Book \ URWGothic-Book.t1 \ URWGothic-Book.pfb \ URWGothicL-Book.pfb \ a010013l.pfb do if test -f $k/$_font_file then AC_MSG_RESULT([found in $k]) groff_have_urw_fonts=yes urwfontsdir=$k break 2 fi done done if test $groff_have_urw_fonts = no then AC_MSG_RESULT([none found]) urwfontsdir= fi AC_SUBST([groff_have_urw_fonts]) AC_SUBST(urwfontsdir) ]) The lengthy comment up there looks like it might hold the explanation. # ... We do NOT search the path of # directories built into Ghostscript because those fonts lack the # corresponding AFM files we need to generate groff font description # files; see afmtodit(1). Ghostscript's own fonts are treated as the # "default foundry" and we already provide descriptions of them in # font/devpdf (along with groff's EURO font). So this may be working as designed--working _around_ a convention of frustrating limitation by some distributors of fonts. Do any of the following directories exist on Fedora 39 and contain .afm files alongside the fonts proper? _list_paths="\ /usr/share/fonts/type1/gsfonts/ \ /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/ \ /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/adobestd35/ \ /usr/share/fonts/type1/urw-base35/ \ /opt/local/share/fonts/urw-fonts/ \ /usr/local/share/fonts/ghostscript/" Regards, Branden signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Configuring groff 1.23.0 on Fedora 39 fails to find the URW base 35 fonts
On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:49:10 -0500, "G. Branden Robinson" wrote: > First thing to know is, did that ./configure option fix this build in > this respect? Yes. The build and installation finished correctly, and the resulting groff works. -- T. Kurt Bond, tkurtb...@gmail.com, tkurtbond.github.io
Re: Configuring groff 1.23.0 on Fedora 39 fails to find the URW base 35 fonts
Hi Kurt, At 2023-12-18T15:40:13-0500, T. Kurt Bond wrote: > I was building groff 1.23.0 on Fedora 39 and found that its > configure script didn't find the URW base 35 fonts, although they are > installed and the directory that they are in - > /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35 - is reported by gs -h: > > GPL Ghostscript 10.02.1 (2023-11-01) > Copyright (C) 2023 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights reserved. > [Irrelevant -h output elided.] > Search path: >/usr/share/ghostscript/Resource/Init : /usr/share/ghostscript/lib : >/usr/share/ghostscript/Resource/Font : /usr/share/ghostscript/fonts : >/usr/share/fonts/urw-base35 : /usr/share/fonts/google-droid-sans-fonts > Ghostscript is also using fontconfig to search for font files > > I continued with the '--with-urw-fonts-dir=DIR' option, but thought > I'd mention the problem. First thing to know is, did that ./configure option fix this build in this respect? Regards, Branden signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Configuring groff 1.23.0 on Fedora 39 fails to find the URW base 35 fonts
At 2023-12-18T21:39:50+, Deri wrote: > This would appear to be an issue with the part of configure which > looks for the URW fonts, Branden is the expert. I guess I'm as transparent as glass, because you saw right through my attempt to pawn this off on you. Off-foistingly yours, Branden signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Configuring groff 1.23.0 on Fedora 39 fails to find the URW base 35 fonts
On Monday, 18 December 2023 20:40:13 GMT T. Kurt Bond wrote: > I was building groff 1.23.0 on Fedora 39 and found that its > configure script didn't find the URW base 35 fonts, although they are > installed and the directory that they are in - > /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35 - is reported by gs -h: > > GPL Ghostscript 10.02.1 (2023-11-01) > Copyright (C) 2023 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights reserved. > [Irrelevant -h output elided.] > Search path: >/usr/share/ghostscript/Resource/Init : /usr/share/ghostscript/lib : >/usr/share/ghostscript/Resource/Font : /usr/share/ghostscript/fonts : >/usr/share/fonts/urw-base35 : /usr/share/fonts/google-droid-sans-fonts > Ghostscript is also using fontconfig to search for font files > > I continued with the '--with-urw-fonts-dir=DIR' option, but thought > I'd mention the problem. This would appear to be an issue with the part of configure which looks for the URW fonts, Branden is the expert. Cheers Deri
Configuring groff 1.23.0 on Fedora 39 fails to find the URW base 35 fonts
I was building groff 1.23.0 on Fedora 39 and found that its configure script didn't find the URW base 35 fonts, although they are installed and the directory that they are in - /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35 - is reported by gs -h: GPL Ghostscript 10.02.1 (2023-11-01) Copyright (C) 2023 Artifex Software, Inc. All rights reserved. [Irrelevant -h output elided.] Search path: /usr/share/ghostscript/Resource/Init : /usr/share/ghostscript/lib : /usr/share/ghostscript/Resource/Font : /usr/share/ghostscript/fonts : /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35 : /usr/share/fonts/google-droid-sans-fonts Ghostscript is also using fontconfig to search for font files I continued with the '--with-urw-fonts-dir=DIR' option, but thought I'd mention the problem. -- T. Kurt Bond, tkurtb...@gmail.com, tkurtbond.github.io
