Hi,

On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 02:44:49AM +0000, Lennart Jablonka wrote:
> The Ghostscript tarball contains a set of 35 fonts.  The Ghostscript build
> embeds those fonts in libgs.so.  That’s configurable.
> 
> Why does the port ghostscript-fonts exist?  Why does the ghostscript port
> depend on it, if it doesn’t use it?

For historical reasons. In the past, the adobe fonts weren't
redistributable under a acceptable license, so there were the
gnu-fonts as an alternative. That changed, but I (as the former
maintainer of the ghostscript port) didn't notice that ghostscript
started to include them in their source distribution.

> We could drop ghostscript-fonts and let
> Ghostscript have its own fonts installed in the file system, no?

If so, then as a sub-package, because there seem to be a few ports
the depend on print/ghostscript/gnu-fonts but not on print/ghostscript/gnu.

It would also be worth comparing the adobe fonts contained in the
ghostscript sources with the "original" upstream ones
(urw-base35-fonts-20200910.tar.gz, which I currently use for our
lilypond port (at build time), and which apparently are newer then
those included in the ghostscript sources. No idea wether "newer"
means "better" here, or wether there are only documentation and /
or licencse changes.

Ciao,
	Kili