Re: Ghostscript/GhostPDL 9.22 Release Candidate 1

At 10:23 22/09/2017 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:

>If it's a conceivable part of a good longterm strategy: I think our
>fonts are generated via Fontforge starting with a METAFONT (or
>METAPOST?) font description, so it's conceivable that if other font
>formats would generally be better supported by toolchains in general
>that we could possibly tell Fontforge to generate other formats.
>
>I have very little clue of what is involved here, and circumnavigating a
>possibly temporary Ghostscript bug alone would likely not be enough of
>an incentive for investing that work.  It would really depend on the
>quality of general support (mostly in the Free Software world) that we
>could count on whether format/technology changes make sense here.

I think the most important thing is for me to get a grip on what's actually 
going on. I believe we intend to improve support for OTF fonts as 
substitutes for missing Fonts, but that's a long term project, so it only 
gets worked on when there are free cycles (and not by me any more) so 
eventually that problem may go away.

But there's no reason to wait for that, it was only a possible way to solve 
a problem. Looking at the real problems, potentially bugs, that I see is 
probably more important and more productive.



                         Ken