Troy Dawson wrote:
> Peter Scott wrote:
>> Dear SL,
>>
>> For SL 5.0 I noticed that the available xfig and transfig rpms
>> available from the usual repos (transfig.x86_64 1:3.2.4-16 and
>> xfig.x86_64 3.2.4-21.2.el5) do not completely work in that
>> they do not recognize the urw ghostscript fonts that exist in
>> the 5.0 offering, which include the AvantGarde, Palatino, Bookman
>> and Zapf Chancery and Zapf Dingbat fonts.  These are also older
>> versions of xfig and transfig, which were since upgraded to
>> version 3.2.5 for both.
>>
>> I did discover, however, that the following set of four rpms
>> from Fedora 7 (and perhaps Fedora 8, although I did not try
>> those) do work on my SL 5.0 system, and install correctly with
>> no additional dependencies:
>>
>> xfig-3.2.5-5.fc7.x86_64.rpm
>> xfig-common-3.2.5-5.fc7.x86_64.rpm
>> transfig-3.2.5-1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
>> xdg-utils-1.0.2-4.fc7.noarch.rpm
>>
>> These make xfig work without glitches (as far as I can tell so
>> far), inlcuding all the listed fonts.
>>
>> So my suggestion is that these be made available in the usual
>> SL repo set.  Does this make sense?
>>
>> (I am a long-time afficiando of xfig---very useful for me.)
>>
>>     -- Peter
> 
> Hi Peter,
> I want to check and see if this is our bug or the upstream vendors bug.
> I am not a xfig or transfig user.  How would I check to see if it is working
> correctly or not?
> Troy
> 

It's an RedHat bug, reproducable on RHEL 5.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=436981

Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group
__________________________________________________