Re: lout and ghostscript

[Andrew Cassin]

> [ On Sat, January 20, 1996 at 16:50 (MET), Mike Dowling wrote: ]
> > Subject: lout and ghostscript
> >
> > What is going on?
> 
> I think the problem is that lout isn't using the font descriptions which
> apply specifically to the fonts rendered by ghostscript.
> 
> The same problem occurs with troff and groff when using font metrics
> derrived from the Adobe AFM files.
> 
> TeX, on the other hand, is likely using the same fonts as ghostscript.

Wont TeX be using the tex fonts? The full definition of the font will be
in the postscript file itself?

Anyway, I think the problem with ghostscript & lout is to do with the AFM
(adobe font metric) not being available to ghostscript when it renders
the glyph's in your document. Fixing this is pretty painful (I have a 
share font directory which both gs & lout share).

/local/fonts
        afm/    Adobe Font Metric files directory **shared
        pfa/    
        pfb/
        gsf/    Ghostscript font glyph files
        pfm/

The problem with this approach is that both tools have to use the same
file naming conventions (eg. the font foo.gsf must have the metric
file called foo.afm). I am working on some tools to assist this
(perl5) - I'd be happy to donate them when finished.

ACAS