Follow-up Comment #3, bug #66876 (group groff): [comment #2 comment #2:] > The package build is ghostscript-fonts-grops. > See: > https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/M17N:fonts/ghostscript-fonts-grops. > If you look in the file: ghostscript-fonts-grops.spec > in the %build section, the error happens when the command: > make -fgenerate/Makefile afmdir=.. OUTDIR=output > gets executed. > I'm not the person in charge of such package. I gave it a look only because I > was trying to figure out why there was such build failure. > For your convenience I'm attaching the complete log of the failed building > process. > > (file #56989)
I see it. Yes. Thank you! This is helpful. This tells me that OpenSUSE is
taking care of a step that more distributors should be doing, which is
automatically exposing PostScript fonts to _groff_ at the time a package of
PostScript fonts is installed.
If I understand the spec file correctly (I have RPM experience, but it's 20
years old), this is done at package build time and the generated _groff_ font
description files become part of the package payload, so the right thing
happens on both package installation and removal.
That's good, and better integration than many distributors have.
Ideally, and building on other discussions we've had on the _groff_ list over
the years, this would probably be handled with package triggers instead (which
_dpkg_ has had for many years and _rpm_, I think, I for even longer).
The advantages to package triggers are (at minimum):
1. Any update to either _groff_ or the package delivering fonts causes
regeneration of the corresponding font description files.
2. Removal of _groff_ also removes the corresponding font description files;
they're not needed if _groff_ is not present.
An corollary of (1) is that if _groff_ fixes a bug in font description file
generation or improves it in some other way, all of a system's PostScript
fonts get updated when the relevant version of _groff_ is installed.
Another is that _groff_ downgrades would also work right, and not present an
old version of _groff_ with font description files that are "too new".
Practically speaking, this isn't much of a concern since the file format is
**very stable**. But it would give _groff_ developers more freedom to evolve
the format in the future.
Right now I would not expect upgrades/downgrades involving font description
file format feature changes to work unless the font-providing package declared
appropriately strict dependencies on a _groff_ package, which might not be a
desirable scenario because there are applications of PostScript fonts other
than _groff_.
(In _dpkg_/Debian-world, we have "versioned Conflicts:" for that scenario, and
I expect/recall that RPM has something isomorphic, but I'm not eager to thrust
this maintenance burden onto package maintainers if I can avoid it by
providing helper scripts as part of _groff_.)
All of this may be a little bit auxiliary to the concerns of the bug submitter
but I wanted to get them written down.
The instant problem is that there is evidently a bug. I'll see if I can
reproduce it.
Thanks again for reporting this problem.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66876>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
