| | <<<Back 1 day (to 2016/12/11) | 20161212 |
| deekej | hello guys, question regarding the urw-base35 fonts that you provide | 11:47.01 |
| | what is the reason behind that the archive is missing the *.otf and *.ttf formats? :) | 11:47.53 |
| Robin_Watts | deekej: That's a question for chrisl, probably. What URL are you looking at ? | 11:51.21 |
| deekej | http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=urw-core35-fonts.git;a=tree AND https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/ghostpdl-downloads/releases (content of urw-base35-20160926.zip) | 11:52.16 |
| Robin_Watts | So that has the fonts in type1 format. | 11:52.54 |
| kens | Well, Ghostscript is a PostScript itnerpreter. Technically PostScript interpreters cannot handle TrueType or OpenType fonts, unless thay are wrapped as type 42 fonts | 11:53.03 |
| deekej | yeah, I see that | 11:53.05 |
| | ok | 11:53.47 |
| kens | While its true that Ghostscritp can use TTF and OTF fonts as substitutes for missing PostScript fonts, the substitution is not (cannot be) guaranteed to be absolutely flawless, unless the OTF fonts use CFF outlines | 11:54.20 |
| deekej | so for ghostscript to work correctly, it need the *.t1 and *.afm files, correct? | 11:54.21 |
| kens | No | 11:54.27 |
| | It needs PostScript type 1 fonts | 11:54.33 |
| | AFM files are Adobe Font Metrics and are used by layour applications | 11:54.54 |
| | I have no idea what a .t1 font would be. Type 1 fonts are generally .pfb, .pfa or .ps | 11:55.22 |
| deekej | *.t1 are in the fonts repository: | 11:56.18 |
| | [upstream||urw-core35-fonts] u= [master] # file Z003-MediumItalic.t1 | 11:56.19 |
| | Z003-MediumItalic.t1: PostScript Type 1 font text (Z003-MediumItalic 1.00) | 11:56.19 |
| kens | I guess we or URW labelled them that way to avoid confusion. | 11:56.55 |
| | Note that the fonts are owned by URW, while its true that we (I think) negotiated the open source release of those fonts, we don't really 'provide' them. | 11:57.30 |
| | Its just that URW don't either, so what we provide becomes the 'de facto' standard | 11:57.48 |
| deekej | in our previous release in fedora (it's oudtdated, built from SVN) the files had *.pfm and *.pfb extensions | 11:57.53 |
| kens | pfm - Printer Font Metrcs, same as .afm files really | 11:58.11 |
| deekej | ah, ok | 11:58.19 |
| kens | .pfb = Printer Font Binary, a way of compressing type 1 fonts, buts requires an 8-bit binary transmission method | 11:58.39 |
| | .pfa = Printer Font ASCII which works over 7-bit connections | 11:59.01 |
| deekej | kens: yes, I think many distributions look at you as an upstream for providing the URW++ core35 fonts | 11:59.04 |
| kens | I know, but we aren't really | 11:59.15 |
| | Its just that there is nowhere else | 11:59.27 |
| deekej | yes, I understand | 11:59.38 |
| kens | We provide what we need :-) | 11:59.50 |
| | We did look into using TTF and OTF format instead, and it 'nearly' works, but not quite | 12:00.40 |
| deekej | I see | 12:01.28 |
| | just a small off-topic here, probably (you're better experts on fonts than me): | 12:02.09 |
| kens | Actually I htink it was just OTF woth CFF outlines we looked at | 12:02.18 |
| deekej | is there any benefit of providing users of Fedora with OTF files as well? | 12:02.24 |
| kens | For us, no :-) | 12:02.35 |
| deekej | ok | 12:02.38 |
| | I was thinking of providing our users with T1 fonts and OTF | 12:02.55 |
| chrisl | The OTF outlines are the same as the Type1 outlines. | 12:03.16 |
| kens | is glad chrisl is chipping in :) | 12:03.39 |
| deekej | okay, but I should at least provide the AFM files, even though you don't need them for ghostscript, right? | 12:04.15 |
| kens | Other applications might use them, for layout purposes | 12:04.33 |
| chrisl | Yes. Although I think only maybe tex still uses them... not sure | 12:04.56 |
| kens | It means the application can derive the glyph size and spacing without haveing to decode the font | 12:05.04 |
| deekej | okay, that sounds reasonable to have that in distro | 12:05.29 |
| | last question (hopefully): | 12:05.39 |
| | are the AFM files present in ghostpdl/Resource dir? seems I can't find them there | 12:06.03 |
| kens | No | 12:06.13 |
| | The Resource directory contains PostScript resources | 12:06.26 |
| deekej | (or can I expect that the fonts form urw-core35-fonts repository will be the ones you used in ghostpdl?) | 12:06.34 |
| kens | Font metrics are not a PostScript resource category | 12:06.38 |
| deekej | okay | 12:06.43 |
| kens | You need to make sure hte fonts you use are the same as the afm files you use. It shouyld be easy enough to check the font size against the repository I guess. But in general, if the fonts are in the urw repository, that's the fonts we are using | 12:08.00 |
| | Though chrisl would have the definitve answer | 12:08.25 |
| chrisl | deekej: the font files are the same, it's just the names that differ | 12:08.37 |
| | *file* names, I should say | 12:08.47 |
| | And that's just dropping the ".t1" extension | 12:09.17 |
| deekej | I see. But from what I have seen, it shouldn't be problem for ghostscript to use the fonts with different filename. | 12:12.38 |
| | thank you guys very much for you answers, it really helps | 12:13.42 |
| | I hope to bring ghostscript as close to upstream as possible when Fedora 26 is released | 12:14.14 |
| chrisl | You can configure a Fontmap(.GS) file to map a font name to a file name that doesn't match the font name. You need to be careful doing that for the base35, though | 12:14.21 |
| | Many distros work that way. Ghostscript, traditionally, has shipped with font file names that match, or closely match the font names | 12:15.12 |
| deekej | yeah, I already had to patch the Fontmap.GS, because we're still using outdated fonts (and font-names) in Fedora | 12:15.56 |
| | and I want to fix that now | 12:16.06 |
| | one more small thing - could it be possible to have the same name for the fonts archive as the git repository has? | 14:35.27 |
| | urw-base35-20160926.zip ->> urw-core35-20160926.zip | 14:35.47 |
| chrisl | deekej: why? | 14:37.53 |
| deekej | it seemed to me more consistent, and I though Fedora Packaking Guidelines required some justification for making different name of package | 14:41.15 |
| | I was wrong in the latter, it should be fine | 14:41.27 |
| deekej | hates multitasking... constant context-switching produces mistakes like this :) | 14:43.17 |
| chrisl | I hate dealing with the URW fonts..... | 14:43.27 |
| deekej | :D | 14:43.33 |
| | I think I understand why :) | 14:44.04 |
| aleray | hi, I have this script using mutool/mupdf but it does not work anymore. It gives me the message `ReferenceError: 'mupdf' is not defined`. Do you know what is happening? Here is the script: http://stdin.fr/Bazar/Mutool | 14:55.21 |
| | Robin_Watts, hi. ^^ may you know? | 15:04.02 |
| tor8 | aleray: var pdf = new PDFDocument(argv[1]) | 15:06.25 |
| | aleray: we decided to drop the 'mupdf' namespace for the top level functions | 15:06.51 |
| aleray | tor8, thanks! I try that | 15:25.32 |
| deekej | chrisl: hey, here you wrote that you have reuploaded new archives with the license files added | 17:22.16 |
| | http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697390 | 17:22.17 |
| | question: where exactly did you upload those new archives? | 17:22.31 |
| chrisl | Same place as the old ones | 17:22.52 |
| deekej | I can't find license files in the font archive from here: https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/ghostpdl-downloads/releases | 17:22.54 |
| chrisl | Oh, I didn't realise it was on github...... | 17:23.50 |
| deekej | should I download it from somewhere else? | 17:24.12 |
| chrisl | They are here, too: http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/fonts/ | 17:24.49 |
| deekej | ah, ok :) | 17:25.05 |
| | thanks :) | 17:25.07 |
| chrisl | I'll fix teh github one shortly | 17:25.16 |
| deekej | np :) | 17:25.22 |
| | I can see the files now :) | 17:25.40 |
| chrisl | I couldn't log into github last week, anyway | 17:25.58 |
| | There - github is up to date, too | 17:28.59 |
| deekej | thanks :) | 17:29.04 |
| | Forward 1 day (to 2016/12/13)>>> | |
Log of #ghostscript at irc.freenode.net.