Bug 1376476

Can you please clarify more on this?

Does it mean that Fedora ships its own fonts and the urw-fonts are part of it?
In which package are those "default" fonts included?
Should the urw-fonts package be retired?

I will be doing rebase to ghostscript-9.20 when it comes out, it should be available for F26. It would be nice to have this solved for this rebase, but I will most likely not touch previous releases. Feels to me like useless work since the rebase is coming, and I'm time constraints at the moment.

Regards,

Dee'Kej

(In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #1)

> Does it mean that Fedora ships its own fonts and the urw-fonts are part of
> it?

Fedora ghostscript package deletes internal fonts (Resource/Font/)
for unknown reasons. From the spec file:
# Don't ship URW fonts; we already have them.
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/ghostscript/%{gs_dot_ver}/Resource/Font

And instead a very old urw-fonts version(1.0.7pre44) is shipped, from:
http://svn.ghostscript.com/ghostscript/tags/

> In which package are those "default" fonts included?
> Should the urw-fonts package be retired?

Upstream ghostscript project already has latest urw-fonts in Resource/Font/

If Resource/Font/ is included in Fedora ghostscript package, YES it should
be deleted.
Otherwise it should be updated from http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=urw-core35-fonts.git
or http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/ (old packages)


Thank you.

(In reply to Xose Vazquez Perez from comment #2)
> Fedora ghostscript package deletes internal fonts (Resource/Font/)
> for unknown reasons. From the spec file:
> # Don't ship URW fonts; we already have them.
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/ghostscript/%{gs_dot_ver}/Resource/Font
> 
> And instead a very old urw-fonts version(1.0.7pre44) is shipped, from:
> http://svn.ghostscript.com/ghostscript/tags/
The reason for this is that according to Fedora Packaging Guidelines (FPG - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines) packages should not bundle anything that is already present in Fedora, or can be created as separate package that other packages can use as well. In other words, we should BuildRequires whatever we can/are able.

> > In which package are those "default" fonts included?
> > Should the urw-fonts package be retired?
> 
> Upstream ghostscript project already has latest urw-fonts in Resource/Font/
> 
> If Resource/Font/ is included in Fedora ghostscript package, YES it should
> be deleted.
> Otherwise it should be updated from
> http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=urw-core35-fonts.git
> or http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/ (old packages)

So looking at this request, this is more about updating the old urw-fonts package. I'm inclined to have the urw-fonts package built from ghostscript package, since it seems they keep the up-to-date version of it.

I was planning to ask the maintainer of the urw-fonts to take ownership. I will see what can be done in this case.

Regards,

Dee'Kej

(In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #3)

> So looking at this request, this is more about updating the old urw-fonts
> package. I'm inclined to have the urw-fonts package built from ghostscript
> package, since it seems they keep the up-to-date version of it.

Trivial info, but just in case:

- The "Fedora urw-fonts package" includes "PostScript Type 1 font" files and its "metrics".
- "Resource/Font/*" from Ghostscript source only "PostScript Type 1 font" files.
- And urw-core35-fonts.git includes "PostScript Type 1 font" + "font metrics" + "OpenType font" + "TrueType font"

FYI, gs-9.20 and urw-base35-20160926 fonts were released today:

- GS: http://www.ghostscript.com/doc/9.20/History9.htm#Version9.20

- Fonts

  This release includes a new release of the base 35 Postscript fonts.
  This font release includes the extended Cyrillic and Greek glyph sets
  originally released for only 3 "core" typefaces, now included in all
  the typefaces in the base 35 fonts set.

    http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/fonts/

(In reply to Xose Vazquez Perez from comment #5)
> FYI, gs-9.20 and urw-base35-20160926 fonts were released today:

Yes, I'm aware of that... :) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1268838

Anyway, thanks for notifying me. ;)

Is there any news?

Not really, I was doing some pre-liminary investigations during December 2016, but I hit several problems with my Fedora, which took some time to solve.

Now I'm focusing on something different. I hope to get back to this in March/April, but I'm not making any promises, because this will have to be coordinated with fixing of other packages related to ghostscript.

Best regards,

Dee'Kej

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 26 development cycle.
Changing version to '26'.

This is still a BZ I will be dealing with - reopening.