Re: installed 'gropdf' incorrectly used for compilation

[G. Branden Robinson]

Hi Werner,

At 2022-07-26T20:21:48+0000, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> I got the following error messages:
[...]
> gropdf:contrib/mom/examples/typesetting.mom: fatal error:
>   failed to open '/usr/share/ghostscript/9.52/Resource/Font/C059-Roman'
> gropdf:src/utils/addftinfo/addftinfo.1: fatal error:
>   failed to open 
> '/usr/share/ghostscript/9.52/Resource/Font/NimbusRoman-Italic'
[...]
> Analyzing the problem showed that I have an older groff installation
> in `/usr/local` that was configured for gs 9.52.  However, my
> currently installed gs version is 9.54; this means that my locally
> installed groff version is outdated and thus partially invalid.
> 
> The installation from git gets correctly configured to use 9.54.
> 
> This inconsistency of gs on my GNU/Linux is of no importance, but it
> clearly shows that there is a bug while compiling groff: It uses
> `gropdf` from my system instead of using the just compiled `gropdf`!

Are you sure?  I cannot verify this hypothesis; whether I build inside
the tree or out of it, I can't get the build to use any groff
executables that aren't in the tree.

https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?62860

> I guess that during the documentation build `groff -Tpdf` gets used
> without adjusting the PATH so that the freshly compiled binary doesn't
> come first.

We do in fact seem to be careful about this.

contrib/mom/mom.am:

 21 mom_srcdir = $(top_srcdir)/contrib/mom
 22
 23 # pdfmom command used to generate .pdf
 24 #
 25 # Use '-K utf8', not '-k', in case 'configure' didn't find uchardet.
 26 MOMPDFMOM = \
 27   GROFF_COMMAND_PREFIX= \
 28   GROFF_BIN_PATH="$(GROFF_BIN_PATH)" \
 29   PDFMOM_BIN_PATH="$(top_builddir)" \
 30   $(PDFMOMBIN) $(FFLAG) $(MFLAG) -M$(mom_srcdir) -K utf8 -p -e -t

 92 if USE_GROPDF
 93 MOMPROCESSEDEXAMPLEFILES = \
 94   contrib/mom/examples/letter.pdf \
 95   contrib/mom/examples/mom-pdf.pdf \
 96   contrib/mom/examples/mon_premier_doc.pdf \
 97   contrib/mom/examples/sample_docs.pdf \
 98   contrib/mom/examples/slide-demo.pdf \
 99   contrib/mom/examples/copyright-default.pdf \
100   contrib/mom/examples/copyright-chapter.pdf
101 if HAVE_URW_FONTS
102 MOMPROCESSEDEXAMPLEFILES += contrib/mom/examples/typesetting.pdf
103 endif

124 endif

143 # rule to generate .pdf files from .mom files
144 SUFFIXES += .mom .pdf
145 .mom.pdf:
146         $(GROFF_V)$(MKDIR_P) `dirname $@` \
147         && LC_ALL=C $(MOMPDFMOM) $< >$@

It's starting to look to me like this has to do more with the URW font
detection stuff, which has seen a lot of churn lately.

Even if the correct gropdf runs, the wrong font directory for URW fonts
could be used if it that directory is only partially populated with
the required fonts.

So maybe this is the same issue John Gardner reported after all.

https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?62918

Regards,
Branden

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature