http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1074266 Stefan Brüns <stefan.bruens@rwth-aachen.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |http://bugzilla.opensuse.or | |g/show_bug.cgi?id=1082896 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1074266 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1074266#c3 Johannes Meixner <jsmeix@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |daniel.molkentin@suse.com --- Comment #3 from Johannes Meixner <jsmeix@suse.com> --- Stefan Brüns, feel free to submit a new font package to the OBS Printing project even if it is currently under development because --------------------------------------------------------------------- The "Printing" development project may contain new software or work-in-progress changes of existing software that might neither be in a stable state nor fit well into currently installed systems. --------------------------------------------------------------------- cf. https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/Printing But a precondition for a font package in the Printing project is that those fonts directly belong to the base printing system for example when those fonts are really required by Ghostscript. In this case I could "just accept" a new font package. In contrast optional additional fonts would better belong to a specific font project in the OBS e.g. M17N:fonts or something like that, see https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/M17N:fonts and therein the link to https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Fonts FYI: I know basically nothing at all about fonts and their packaging. I inherited the content of our current ghostscript-fonts package from our old ghostscript-library "all-in-one" package that contained Ghostscript plus several other stuff like fonts for Ghostscript which contained 7 separated upstream source 'tar' achives, cf. https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Dropped/ghostscript-library I had only split the fonts into a separated package, see https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735824 for all the details at that time and in particular regarding the fonts see therein starting at https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735824#c43 and subsequent comments. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1074266 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1074266#c4 --- Comment #4 from Stefan Brüns <stefan.bruens@rwth-aachen.de> --- (In reply to Johannes Meixner from comment #3)

Stefan Brüns, feel free to submit a new font package to the OBS Printing project even if it is currently under development because --------------------------------------------------------------------- The "Printing" development project may contain new software or work-in-progress changes of existing software that might neither be in a stable state nor fit well into currently installed systems. --------------------------------------------------------------------- cf. https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/Printing

I will submit the package as soon as reasonable, but currently it is broken in to many aspects to be useful at all.

But a precondition for a font package in the Printing project is that those fonts directly belong to the base printing system for example when those fonts are really required by Ghostscript. In this case I could "just accept" a new font package.

In contrast optional additional fonts would better belong to a specific font project in the OBS e.g. M17N:fonts or something like that, see https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/M17N:fonts and therein the link to https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Fonts

I think in this case Printing is the right project: - the base 35 fonts are part of the Postscript Level 2 specification, which makes them part of the printing stack - they are redistributed on Github by Artifex (i.e. Ghostscript) - its the same fonts as bundled (for convenience) in Ghostscript

FYI:

I know basically nothing at all about fonts and their packaging.

I inherited the content of our current ghostscript-fonts package from our old ghostscript-library "all-in-one" package that contained Ghostscript plus several other stuff like fonts for Ghostscript which contained 7 separated upstream source 'tar' achives, cf. https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Dropped/ghostscript-library

I had only split the fonts into a separated package, see https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735824 for all the details at that time and in particular regarding the fonts see therein starting at https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=735824#c43 and subsequent comments.

The current upstream motion (apparently pushed by distributions) seems to be somewhat reversing the earlier steps, the base 35 fonts are still bundled in the ghostscript tarball, but also made available as an independent repository, where the latter also includes fontconfig data. The base 35 fonts currently provided in the ghostscript-fonts-std package have a significantly smaller glyph coverage than the one bundled with ghostscript (which are identical to the ones in the urw-base35-fonts gh repository). This has the effect that e.g. a PDF document referring to Adobe Times or Helvetica will render differently in Ghostscript (using a current Nimbus Roman/Sans) and Evince/Okular (Poppler) (apparently using Liberation Serif/Sans). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1074266 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1074266#c6 Johannes Meixner <jsmeix@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |IN_PROGRESS --- Comment #6 from Johannes Meixner <jsmeix@suse.com> --- Now there is the new package urw-base35-fonts in the OBS development project "Printing" which is meant to be a complete replacement of ghostscript-fonts-std in the long term, see the comments for request 588023 at https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/588023 Stefan Brüns many thanks for all your work and for your valuable contributions! Joshua Krämer, please test the urw-base35-fonts package in the OBS "Printing" project, cf. https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/Printing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1074266 Johannes Meixner <jsmeix@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|ghostscript-fonts is |ghostscript-fonts is |outdated |outdated (will be replaced | |by new urw-base35-fonts | |package) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1074266 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1074266#c9 --- Comment #9 from Joshua Krämer <joshua.kraemer@gmail.com> --- I have tested ghostscript-9.23 and the new urw-base35-fonts packages and both seem to work as expected. For instance, default PostScript fonts in a PDF file are displayed correctly when viewed with Ghostview and also when viewed with Okular. However, I think the fonts should be installed to /usr/share/fonts/type1, because they are Type 1 OTF files. Additionally, there is an upstream bug in the fontconfig files: "TeX Gyre Heros" is misspelled as "TeX Gyre Heroes" (I will report it on Github). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1074266 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1074266#c11 --- Comment #11 from Joshua Krämer <joshua.kraemer@gmail.com> --- Thank you very much for the new urw-base35-fonts package! I'm glad if I can help. This is the URL of the upstream GitHub issue: https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/urw-base35-fonts/issues/23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.