Conflicts in font name because of different implementations
| Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| gsfonts (Ubuntu) |
New
|
Undecided
|
Unassigned | ||
Bug Description
Binary package hint: gsfonts
The original ghostscript fonts, as shipped with texlive, have a name conflict with the ones shipped with gsfonts. This is because gsfonts has extended the fonts (in term of supporting more languages) but has not committed these changes upstream. The 'fork' done in gsfonts has changed the filenames of the pfb files, but not the unique font id and the font name. this has resulted in an ambiguous situation for end users.
End users might expect to use one font, but might end up using another implementation. this can be solved by putting effort in creating and using a latest and greatest upstream version.
For more information, see upstream issue:
http://
Please also consider this issue for:
- gsfonts-wadalab
- gsfonts-x11
- gsfonts-other
and consider this also for all the four packages in Debian
Fixing this bug will result in an unambiguous font selection for the user and complying with upstream file names which are also used by distributions of this font, e.g. with texlive that is also shipped with Ubuntu.
| Pander (pander) wrote | #1 |
| Pander (pander) wrote | #2 |
| Pander (pander) wrote | #3 |
| Pander (pander) wrote | #4 |
| tags: | added: fonts |
One of the specific GNU/Linux problems is that the paths in defoma hint files are hardcoded to the gsfonts files, which might not be the ones you intent to use. The hardcoding is all right, just the gsfonts need to get upgraded (and renamed) to upstream.