Re: proposed "headline" items for groff 1.24.0

"G. Branden Robinson" <[email protected]> Wed, 28 Jan 2026 15:04:57 -0600

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.printing.groff.general
Message-ID	<20260128210457.ep7lfvspmz2s42iq@illithid>

At 2026-01-28T20:51:00+0000, Deri wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 January 2026 08:31:30 GMT G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > ---snip---
> > *  groff's "configure" script now supports a "--without-urw-fonts"
> >    option to better support systems that don't require full PDF support
> >    from groff.
> 
> A strange choice for "Top of the Pops". PDF fonts in 1.23.0 were
> handled automatically, if URW fonts were not installed you got the
> same result as if --without-urw-fonts was specified for 1.24. It was a
> bit "noisy" in that numerous warnings would appear during the build,
> illustrating gropdf's ability to produce pdfs would be less than a
> full service.

Can you clarify whether your grievance is with "--without-urw-fonts"
existing at all, or with its presence as a "headline" item?

You seem to be justifying the latter with an argument against the
former, and the latter is the topic under discussion.

I'm not at all wedded to this (brand new) configuration option as a
headline item.  But I get the feeling that throwing it out would not
suffice to satisfy you.

Regards,
Branden

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)