Re: proposed "headline" items for groff 1.24.0

On Wednesday, 28 January 2026 21:04:57 GMT G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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?

Well I suppose it is both since I don't understand why you promoted normal 
warnings to abort a build, I am unlikely to understand why a sticking plaster 
solution deserves such prominence.

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

Perhaps, if you explained what "slight" or "chunky" things go wrong, I might 
agree --without-urw-fonts is the best thing since sliced salami. There could 
be a huge problem of which I'm unaware.
 
> 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.

You are perspicacious. :-)

Cheers

Deri
 
> Regards,
> Branden