David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar(a)redhat.com> ---
Hello guys, sorry for the delayed response, I had a vacation. :)
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #6)
David, I saw that the source package for urw-base35-fonts contains
t1 and ttf formats. Is there a reason why you left OpenType and TrueType out?
Actually, there is. I was also up for using either TTF or OTF formats for
shipping those fonts, but after long discussions with (URW)++ fonts upstream
(de-facto Artifex Company - creators of ghostscript), I was "forced" to use the
Type1 formats with the metrics files (AFM).
Here's the justification (excerpt from urw-base35-fonts' specfile):
# According to upstream, Ghostscript needs only Type 1 fonts to work
# It can use TTF or OTF fonts as substitutions as well in case the Type 1
# fonts are missing, but the substitution is not (and can't be) guaranteed
# be absolutely flawless, unless the fonts use the CFF outlines:
# > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostScript_fonts#Compact_Font_Format
# The AFM (Adobe Font Metrics) are useful for layout purposes of other
# applications, and they contain general font information and font metrics.
# These AFM files were distributed in the previous 'urw-fonts' package, so
# order to avoid possible regressions in the future, we need to continue
# distributing them.
# NOTE: Fedora Packaging Guidelines (FPG) requires to use OTF or TTF format:
# However, according to upstream, the OTF/TTF fonts cause problems
# with 'pdfwrite' if we try to use them as base35 fonts. Otherwise,
# they work fine, but according to upstream they will *never* be able
# to use OTF/TTF fonts as the base35.
# Since AFAIK no other package/utility requires the base35 fonts, and
# Type 1 fonts with the AFM files are necessary for ghostscript to
# function properly, this fonts package will only use these files. We
# are not shipping the OTF alongside Type 1/AFM, because that would
# approximately double the size of the packages, which is not wanted.
# In case the ghostscript (specifically 'pdfwrite' device) will start
# to work correctly with OTF fonts type, then we will make the switch.
I'm okay with shipping the fonts in the OTF format as well (it now easiery
after several discussions with upstream), but I would expect people to start
complaining about it that the fonts are duplicated on their systems and that
the size of the packages is doubled unnecessary.
Do you have any suggestion on how to proceed from here? Should I take this to
FESco and ask for official exception/permission to ship both Type1/AFM and OTF
Because right now, we are kind of in a dead-end situation:
* ghostscript will not work properly without Type1/AFM (and I've spent a lot
of time to calm things down with ghostscript upstream, and I don't want to mess
it up again - they kind of hated us already before, because we kept messing
with their software improperly and they were receving not relevant bug reports
because of it)
* the new LibreOffice will not work with the old Type1/AFM and it needs the
OTF, as you said
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.