[bug #68348] [devpdf] URW fonts lack coverage of CJK glyphs--how does this differ from devps?
"G. Branden Robinson" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.printing.groff.bugs |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #68348 (group groff): I made a boo-boo. The following will be in my next push. commit c1bb872fde4a637605d954f1ebc2d06dcb570df1 (HEAD -> master) Author: G. Branden Robinson <[email protected]> Date: Sun May 17 09:08:25 2026 -0500 gropdf(1): Revert accidentally committed phrase. URW fonts do not reliably possess CJK glyph coverage. See Savannah #68348. diff --git a/src/devices/gropdf/gropdf.1.man b/src/devices/gropdf/gropdf.1.man index 3a796d824..7fdb00ce7 100644 --- a/src/devices/gropdf/gropdf.1.man +++ b/src/devices/gropdf/gropdf.1.man @@ -890,7 +890,7 @@ .SH Usage (\[lq]U\[rq]) are compatible extensions of the Adobe fonts with extended glyph coverage, -including support for Cyrillic and East Asian scripts. +including support for Cyrillic scripts. . .IR groff 's build process uses _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68348> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 228 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYIAB0WIQQk97aszIMMAvLLwm6qLAuaBUf3TgUCagnMUAAKCRCqLAuaBUf3 TjurAP0cLJbJKHrpacbWNm6iucprPr0ZG+t7qZqhKj5Ure8KvgD/Z9/r0U2eHaej o9omKrY0uR3LpDoDp0Bbtb15iyf2AA4= =uCNP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----