[gs-devel] Status of the bundled 35 base fonts
chris.liddell at artifex.com
Fri Feb 18 09:28:20 UTC 2011
On 18/02/11 08:51, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> n Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:49 AM, Fabian Greffrath<fabian at greffrath.com> wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>> Am 17.02.2011 22:07, schrieb Chris Liddell:
>>> I was under the impression we shipped the original URW fonts (we
>>> discussed modifying the metrics for a different issue last year, and
>>> rejected the idea), but looking in the font files, it seems we do have
>>> Valek's additions in at least some of the fonts.
>> Ghostscript ships the urwcyr fonts with Valek's glyph additions for quite
>> some time, just not the most recent version. The TeX people however ship the
>> original URW++ fonts and they seem to have good reason for that:
>> One reason Walter decided to use the original URW fonts is
>> that they had been regarded as replacements for the built-in
>> printer fonts. People can use the URW fonts for previewing
>> and the built-in printer fonts for printing. In this case it
>> doesn't make sense to add any new glyphs because they will
>> not appear on paper anyway.
>> In the same thread they recommend the use of TeX Gyre fonts if additional
>> Glyphs to the original URW fonts are required.
>>> Given that, I don't see any immediate problem using the latest
>>> versions, however, it's not my just my call, I will have to discuss it
>>> with the other Ghostscript developers.
>> Yes, please do so. It is quite cumbersome for Linux distributions to handle
>> three veriations of the same fonts (i.e. the original URW++ ones from TeX,
>> the urwcyr variant that Ghostscript ships and the latest urwcyr variant as
>> released by Valek).
> I should add that debian will be pleased if you could also release SFD
> source of the fonts instead of fonts directly. We could supply sfd
> source for the first release and script to build PFB from the SFD.
> I will greatly use maintenance and updating in case of problem of the fonts.
We don't actually have the SFD font sources, so this becomes a question
of who does the work to convert the fonts to SFD. Since there's no value
in it for Ghostscript, I doubt I could commit to it on behalf of
Ghostscript in the long term.
Since the fonts very rarely change, I could create the SFD files, and
make them available, but that would risk them "rotting" on the rare
occasions they do change.
A better solution, I think, would be if I wrote a fontforge script to
trivialise the conversion process, and include that in the Ghostscript
release - would that suffice?
More information about the gs-devel