Re: Installing URW++ fonts, issue 4998: why not add wget lines to lilydev-setup.sh?

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno gio 5 ott 2017 alle 14:01, Federico Bruni 
<address@hidden> ha scritto:
> Il giorno gio 5 ott 2017 alle 3:10, Karlin High 
> <address@hidden> ha scritto:
> > On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 6:27 PM, Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> 
> > wrote:
> > > [...]
> >
> > >  somehow this patch needs to be coordinated with Federico,
> > >  rather than using the standard LilyPond patch sequence.
> >
> > That's what I gathered, too. I assumed Federico follows this list. 
> > The
> > discussion had
> > stopped with the question of how to instruct new developers to get 
> > the fonts,
> > and I debated whether to continue it here,
> > or on the Sourceforge or Rietveld issues.
>
> Hi Karlin
>
> In my opinion these fonts should be provided by linux distros.
> I've just read that a new package urw-base35-fonts will replace the 
> obsolete urw-fonts in Fedora 27 (which should be released in 
> November):
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/urw-base35-fonts-20170801-1.fc27
>
> Upstream repository is:
> https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/urw-base35-fonts

I'm testing a new container based on Fedora 27, where urw-base35-fonts 
is installed.
However, I'm still getting the configure error because it seems that 
lilypond need the .otf files and this package contains only *.t1 and 
*.afm files:

# ls /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35
C059-BdIta.afm               NimbusRoman-Regular.afm         
P052-Roman.afm
C059-BdIta.t1                NimbusRoman-Regular.t1          
P052-Roman.t1
C059-Bold.afm                NimbusSans-Bold.afm             
StandardSymbolsPS.afm
C059-Bold.t1                 NimbusSans-Bold.t1              
StandardSymbolsPS.t1
C059-Italic.afm              NimbusSans-BoldItalic.afm       
URWBookman-Demi.afm
C059-Italic.t1               NimbusSans-BoldItalic.t1        
URWBookman-Demi.t1
C059-Roman.afm               NimbusSans-Italic.afm           
URWBookman-DemiItalic.afm
C059-Roman.t1                NimbusSans-Italic.t1            
URWBookman-DemiItalic.t1
D050000L.afm                 NimbusSans-Regular.afm          
URWBookman-Light.afm
D050000L.t1                  NimbusSans-Regular.t1           
URWBookman-Light.t1
NimbusMonoPS-Bold.afm        NimbusSansNarrow-BdOblique.afm  
URWBookman-LightItalic.afm
NimbusMonoPS-Bold.t1         NimbusSansNarrow-BdOblique.t1   
URWBookman-LightItalic.t1
NimbusMonoPS-BoldItalic.afm  NimbusSansNarrow-Bold.afm       
URWGothic-Book.afm
NimbusMonoPS-BoldItalic.t1   NimbusSansNarrow-Bold.t1        
URWGothic-Book.t1
NimbusMonoPS-Italic.afm      NimbusSansNarrow-Oblique.afm    
URWGothic-BookOblique.afm
NimbusMonoPS-Italic.t1       NimbusSansNarrow-Oblique.t1     
URWGothic-BookOblique.t1
NimbusMonoPS-Regular.afm     NimbusSansNarrow-Regular.afm    
URWGothic-Demi.afm
NimbusMonoPS-Regular.t1      NimbusSansNarrow-Regular.t1     
URWGothic-Demi.t1
NimbusRoman-Bold.afm         P052-Bold.afm                   
URWGothic-DemiOblique.afm
NimbusRoman-Bold.t1          P052-Bold.t1                    
URWGothic-DemiOblique.t1
NimbusRoman-BoldItalic.afm   P052-BoldItalic.afm             
Z003-MediumItalic.afm
NimbusRoman-BoldItalic.t1    P052-BoldItalic.t1              
Z003-MediumItalic.t1
NimbusRoman-Italic.afm       P052-Italic.afm                 fonts.dir
NimbusRoman-Italic.t1        P052-Italic.t1

What would you recommend to do? (question open to all the fonts guru in 
this list...)

There's an open issue to document this in the CG:
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4998/

Thanks
Federico