Re: First impressions: strange groff default font behaviour after system upgrade

[Oliver Corff]

Hi Dave,

you hit a weak spot. I've never intentionally worked with groff backend
options (except for paper size) before, and I *should* have noticed that
the switch -e calls eqn, and nothing but that.

Only after having copied Deri's command line, I started to recognize my
ignorance. The files clearly differ now, without included font the
minimal document is approx. 11 kB, with font included it is more like
180 kB.

Thank you,

Have a nice Christmas,

Oliver.

On 19/12/2023 08:12, Dave Kemper wrote:
> On 12/18/23, Oliver Corff via <groff@gnu.org> wrote:
> > I tried to compile my minimal document again, with all combinations of
> > -e, -F /usr/share/fonts/urw35-base/ but nothing changes. The PDF file is
> > always 11771 bytes long. Embedding a font or a glyph should make a
> > difference, or not?
> Embedding a font will definitely change the file size.
>
> Groff's options can be confusing because some apply to groff itself
> and some to the postprocessor.  If you give groff the -e option, that
> tells it to run the input through eqn.  To get embedded fonts in PDF
> output, you need to give the postprocessor, in this case gropdf, the
> -e option.  From groff, you can specify postprocessor options via -P.
> So specifying -P-e to groff sends the -e option to gropdf, which will
> then embed the fonts.  With this you should see the changed file size.
>
> > This prompted me to send the pdf to a different device, and voilà! there
> > everything shows up as intended!
> >
> > groff 1.23.0 is acquitted. That's good news.
> Indeed.  But you still may want to give groff -P-e to make your file
> more robust, letting it work with a wider range of PDF viewers.

--
Dr. Oliver Corff
mailto:oliver.corff@email.de