Conflicts in font name because of different implementations

[Pander]

Binary package hint: gsfonts

The original ghostscript fonts, as shipped with texlive, have a name conflict with the ones shipped with gsfonts. This is because gsfonts has extended the fonts (in term of supporting more languages) but has not committed these changes upstream. The 'fork' done in gsfonts has changed the filenames of the pfb files, but not the unique font id and the font name. this has resulted in an ambiguous situation for end users.

End users might expect to use one font, but might end up using another implementation. this can be solved by putting effort in creating and using a latest and greatest upstream version.

For more information, see upstream issue:
  http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=690490

Please also consider this issue for:
- gsfonts-wadalab
- gsfonts-x11
- gsfonts-other
and consider this also for all the four packages in Debian

Fixing this bug will result in an unambiguous font selection for the user and complying with upstream file names which are also used by distributions of this font, e.g. with texlive that is also shipped with Ubuntu.

[Pander (pander)]

One of the specific GNU/Linux problems is that the paths in defoma hint files are hardcoded to the gsfonts files, which might not be the ones you intent to use. The hardcoding is all right, just the gsfonts need to get upgraded (and renamed) to upstream.

[Pander (pander)]

Please reread the thread. The situation is (in short) that the current fonts in gsfonts needs to be fased out and be replaced by the original fonts from ghostscript since the extra glyphs in gsfonts are below quality and will never be merged upstream.

[Pander (pander)]

Or at least the fonts in gsfonts have to get different id and names, so not to conflict with the original version.

[Pander (pander)]

from upstream issue:

Chris Liddell 2011-12-15 16:26:47 UTC
Ghostscript has reverted to the "pristine" URW fonts:
http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=commit;h=ea9a9517