[bug #68348] [devpdf] URW fonts lack coverage of CJK glyphs--how does this differ from devps?

Follow-up Comment #2, bug #68348 (group groff):

At 2026-05-14T19:00:55-0400, Deri James wrote:
> Update of bug #68348 (group groff):
>
> Assigned to:                    deri => gbranden
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
> Follow-up Comment #1:
>
> What was the bug # where I gave the reason why it should be reverted
> for gropdf. I remember you saying you did not test before committing
> for pdf.

Looks like it was bug #67971.

> For ps you said you had lost the font you used to test grops, and
> referred me to the original patch submission. Unfortunately that did
> not help since it does not go into what you have to do with the ttf
> font mentioned, i.e. do you have to run fontforge to produce a pfa,
> what do you change in the JPM file, what do you put in the grops
> download file, can you use fontinstall.sh.
>
> I never got grops to work with any of the CJK fonts I test with
> gropdf, worse, the postscript file produced with using JPM as a font
> just crashed ghostscript.

Good Lord.

> Please can you help by producing some documentation whicb shows how to
> successfully use JPM with a mincho style font successfully with grops
> so I can see what it is meant to be doing.

Ah, fair.  Homework for me, then!

I wonder if we can lure TANAKA Takuji back...



    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68348>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQQk97aszIMMAvLLwm6qLAuaBUf3TgUCagZVQAAKCRCqLAuaBUf3
TqpgAP9QrCZkKAzz9+83GkvbJAY1V3cfMgtk0qXV6RWKxYnHfAEAorhFEjkaRnDV
A0TlR0hzufEffGrTNoMzp4EgKTTzDQ4=
=YVI5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----