Hi Deri,
At 2022-07-16T16:21:15+0100, Deri wrote:
> On Saturday, 16 July 2022 12:48:50 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > [1] I think this is because it began life as, or Deri had hopes for it
> > to be, an installable tool. Failing to add gropdf support for some
> > crazy font that will
On Saturday, 16 July 2022 12:48:50 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> [1] I think this is because it began life as, or Deri had hopes for it
> to be, an installable tool. Failing to add gropdf support for some
> crazy font that will be used only by the document you're about to
> write is
On Saturday, 16 July 2022 12:02:29 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi Ingo & Deri,
>
> At 2022-06-26T17:16:44+0100, Deri wrote:
> > > In general, i would recommend differentiating configuration variables
> > > by functionality. For example, if all you need is one font path,
> > > i would expect
Hi Ingo,
At 2022-06-21T20:33:43+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> G. Branden Robinson wrote on Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 09:54:54AM -0500:
> > First I want to add a regression test for this (and devhtml), so
> > that we're sure all the font description files that _should_ get
> > built unconditionally actua
Hi Ingo & Deri,
At 2022-06-26T17:16:44+0100, Deri wrote:
> > In general, i would recommend differentiating configuration variables
> > by functionality. For example, if all you need is one font path,
> > i would expect having one variable to configure it. Two variables
> > would make sense to me
On Sunday, 26 June 2022 13:11:12 BST Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Deri,
>
> thanks for your extensive explanation.
>
[...]
> > In the same way that the choice of URW directory is passed into
> > Foundry.in, although I would prefer separate variables, one for
> > the users choice and one for the stat
Hi Deri,
thanks for your extensive explanation.
Deri wrote on Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 05:32:10PM +0100:
> On Thursday, 23 June 2022 14:05:29 BST Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> 1. Define a configuration variable.
>> 2. Unconditionally set that variable to a sane default value,
>> 3. Run some autoconfigu
On Thursday, 23 June 2022 14:05:29 BST Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> > I would suggest I add a new parameter to Foundry.in:-
> >
> > static_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/
Hi Deri and Branden,
Deri wrote on Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 12:56:16AM +0100:
> On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 22:29:29 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
>> At 2022-06-22T21:30:25+0100, Deri wrote:
[...]
>>> I think the tests for awk and ghostscript need to just apply to the
>>> line which uses those progra
On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 22:29:29 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi Deri,
>
> At 2022-06-22T21:30:25+0100, Deri wrote:
> > I think I have sussed what might be happening. In the port build the
> > standard fonts get built because of the addition of
> > /usr/local/share/fonts/ghostscript to the
Hi Deri,
At 2022-06-22T21:30:25+0100, Deri wrote:
> I think I have sussed what might be happening. In the port build the
> standard fonts get built because of the addition of
> /usr/local/share/fonts/ghostscript to the Foundry file yesterday. None
> of the U fonts get built because this make rule
On Wednesday, 22 June 2022 14:48:24 BST Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hello Deri,
>
> Deri wrote on Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 01:07:34AM +0100:
> > I've tracked down the problem. The configure flag --with-urw-fonts-dir
> > was not being used when searching for fonts for the default foundry,
> > just when sear
Hello Deri,
Deri wrote on Wed, Jun 22, 2022 at 01:07:34AM +0100:
> I've tracked down the problem. The configure flag --with-urw-fonts-dir
> was not being used when searching for fonts for the default foundry,
> just when searching for the U foundry. This is why the U- fonts were
> correctly popul
On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 18:44:00 BST Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Since the logs are rather large, i'm not appending them to emails,
> but you can now inspect them here:
Hi Ingo,
I've tracked down the problem. The configure flag --with-urw-fonts-dir was not
being used when searching for fonts for the
Hi Branden,
thanks for your thorough explanation!
G. Branden Robinson wrote on Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 09:54:54AM -0500:
> At 2022-06-21T15:28:03+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
[...]
>> But then i get this at build time:
>>
>> +BuildFoundries: warning: line 33: Unable to locate font(s)
>> URWGothic
Hi Deri and Branden,
Thanks for your help and sorry that i'm so dumb when it comes
to fonts.
Deri wrote on Tue, Jun 21, 2022 at 04:53:11PM +0100:
> On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 14:28:03 BST Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> So far, i never cared to educate myself what "URW fonts" even are,
>> or what they mig
On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 14:28:03 BST Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> So far, i never cared to educate myself what "URW fonts" even are,
> or what they might be useful for. I know there have repeated been
> messages about those fonts on this list, but i never bothered to
> read them.
The biggest differenc
On Tuesday, 21 June 2022 15:54:54 BST G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > +BuildFoundries: warning: line 75:
> > +The path(s) used for searching:
> > +ARRAY(0x23cef899970)
>
> Urp. The form of that output is certainly bogus. Did I break it in a
> recent change? I'll check.
Nope. That was me, caused
Hi Ingo,
At 2022-06-21T15:28:03+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> I see. Actually, that's a typical situation in OpenBSD ports builds.
> For many (if not most) ports, build dependencies and run dependencies
> differ, and it isn't even unusual that none of them is a superset
> of the other. At build t
Hi Branden,
G. Branden Robinson wrote on Sat, Jun 18, 2022 at 03:06:48PM -0500:
> I did not consider, and did not test, the scenario where the build and
> deployment systems differ, and the latter was more capable than the
> former.
I see. Actually, that's a typical situation in OpenBSD ports b
Brief self-correction here...
At 2022-06-18T15:06:48-0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Your patch seems valid and minimally intrusive to me; it may look a
> little bit weird (for an Automake file), but the circumstances leading
> to it are weird. Normally I think Automake would require us to sto
Hi Ingo,
At 2022-06-18T19:16:10+0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> I have made a bit of progress with these. I now suspect both are
> related to each other and not limited to any specific implementation
> of make(1).
Thanks for digging into this. I think you uncovered not a simple
accident, but an ov
22 matches
Mail list logo
