Follow-up Comment #4, bug #62921 (project groff):
[comment #1 comment #1:] > The main practical problem here is that while we could certainly generate _groff_ font descriptions file for some or all of those, and ship them, users _still_ won't get those fonts in the output they generate unless they have the font files installed where the output driver programs, like _grops_ and _gropdf_, can find them. > > This is a matter of populating the "download" files that these programs respectively read. > > But if that problem is addressed, generating the fonts' descriptions in _troff_/_groff_ format isn't the long pole anymore. > > Do you agree? Hi, original submitter here. Yes, your solution would be fine, but I'm a bit confused. For groff 1.22.4 in Fedora 36 I noticed there are 3 *.pfa_ files in /usr/share/groff/1.22.4/font/devps/: freeeuro.pfa_, symbolsl.pfa_, zapfdr.pfa_ Those files seem to be included with the source code distribution at http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/groff/groff-1.22.4.tar.gz . So couldn't that same bundling be done for an additional monospaced font? The /usr/share/groff/1.22.4/font/devps/freeeuro.afm and /usr/share/groff/1.22.4/font/devps/freeeuro.pfa_ files are the only places where the FreeEuro font exists on my Fedora system, as far as I know. I'm just confused on why the corresponding afm/pfa files for a new monospaced font couldn't also be included, in addition to being mentioned in the /usr/share/groff/1.22.4/font/devps/download file like FreeEuro is. Unless I'm wrong and those were added by the groff package maintainers for Fedora. Thanks. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?62921> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
