[bug #60604] m4/groff.m4: GROFF_URW_FONTS_CHECK: stale URL

URL: Summary: m4/groff.m4: GROFF_URW_FONTS_CHECK: stale URL Project: GNU troff Submitted by: None Submitted on: Fri 14 May 2021 07:02:22 AM UTC Category: Font devpdf S

[bug #60604] m4/groff.m4: GROFF_URW_FONTS_CHECK: stale URL

Update of bug #60604 (project groff): Status:None => In Progress Assigned to:None => gbranden ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #60604] m4/groff.m4: GROFF_URW_FONTS_CHECK: stale URL

Update of bug #60604 (project groff): Severity: 3 - Normal => 4 - Important ___ Follow-up Comment #1: Setting severity to important. This is pretty important to get right for the 1.23.0 release.

[bug #60571] Footnote markers defeat end-of-sentence recognition

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #60571 (project groff): [comment #3 comment #3:] > [comment #2 comment #2:] > > The following remain. > > And of those. Heirloom uses > > ; @ j J P T U Checking the doc.ps from their git repository, I see they've claimed I W as well. :-/ This is particularly per

[bug #60587] Allow font files to specify kern pairs for characters in different fonts

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #60587 (project groff): Hi Dave, I share Werner's instinct as to the pragmatics of this. It seems to me like a common computer science problem--a combinatorial explosion. Just _within_ a font, the number of potential kerning pairs can be immense in the Unicode era. Gi

[bug #60604] m4/groff.m4: GROFF_URW_FONTS_CHECK: stale URL

Update of bug #60604 (project groff): Status: In Progress => Fixed Open/Closed:Open => Closed Planned Release:None => 1.23.0

[bug #44715] groff_font(5): Document lack of kerning for different styles

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #44715 (project groff): Here's the text of the original report. Neither Bjarni's chosen file name nor Savannah's (lack of) file type identification on the attachment were as helpful as they could have been. Groff Bug Report GROFF VERSION: 1.

[bug #60587] Allow font files to specify kern pairs for characters in different fonts

Follow-up Comment #4, bug #60587 (project groff): Hi Branden, You're talking about the data, whereas the (intended) scope of this bug is merely the mechanism to read the data--of which none yet exists. You're right that it's theoretically possible this data will grow out of control once a mechan

[bug #60571] Footnote markers defeat end-of-sentence recognition

Follow-up Comment #5, bug #60571 (project groff): [comment #4 comment #4:] > Yeah, I just don't know where the forum for modern *roff > standardization is. Is it groff at gnu? http://github.com/n-t-roff/heirloom-doctools does direct users there for discussion, but I'm not sure how much developer

[bug #60589] andoc.tmac: mysterious page number 0a in batch rendering

Update of bug #60589 (project groff): Status:None => Fixed Assigned to:None => gbranden Open/Closed:Open => Closed Planned Release:

[bug #55300] URW fonts issues in Groff 1.22.4

Follow-up Comment #1, bug #55300 (project groff): Commit d6b6183a fixed the 404 URL (among other changes to the message you quoted). ___ Reply to this item at:

[bug #60604] m4/groff.m4: GROFF_URW_FONTS_CHECK: stale URL

Follow-up Comment #3, bug #60604 (project groff): Branden, do you have an opinion on the related issue brought up in bug #55300? I don't know whether Ghostscript is required; I've never installed/run groff on a system without it. ___ Reply