[Debian-in-workers] Updating fonts-smc and FontForge update

[Balasankar C]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi,

This mail is about two issues/suggestions regarding the fonts-smc packag
e.

* As discussed in this list earlier, the package fonts-smc have been
waiting for an update of Font Forge in Debian to include some new fonts
released by the upstream and update some of the existing fonts to latest
versions which solves many critical rendering issues. But, it seems Font
Forge update is taking quite some time (an issue which I fully
understand is caused not by negligence, but due to lack of manpower and
feel sorry about not being able to help solve) and users are denied of
these new versions and fonts.

So, I suggest it would be better to ship TTFs instead of building them
from SFDs like we do now. AFAIK, TTF -> SFD conversion is lossless and
TTF may itself be considered as source. From what I know, many of the
font packages, like font-noto, ship TTFs without any issues. I have
spoken with the upstream developers (SMC, of which I am also a member)
and they agreed that shipping/packaging TTFs would be the better thing
to do than deprive the users of new versions and fonts.

* Secondly, the upstream has changed their release pattern to individual
font releases rather than updating the entire set of fonts as part of
their migration to GitLab from savannah. So, the scheme of releasing a
new version for all fonts is now obsolete. This points to splitting the
fonts-smc package to individual packages. Also, users may be interested
in installing/using specific fonts instead of the whole package. So, it
would be better to give them options to install only the specific fonts
they wish to install or all the fonts.

So the suggestion is to split the existing fonts-smc package to
individual font packages (like fonts-smc-meera, fonts-smc-rachana etc)
and make fonts-smc a metapackage that depends on all of these individual
packages. I thought about making multiple binaries from a single source
package, but since the upstream shifted to individual updates and
releases, it is not possible.

I would like to hear about your suggestions regarding these two issues.
If no one has any objections, I intend to perform these modifications
after two weeks (by the end of Christmas holidays).

- -- 
Regards
Balasankar C
http://balasankarc.in

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJWbaJXAAoJEJbtq5sua3Fxsu0H/iIQCHnSUvEvvyRH7JkzssYA
70BauTHMeBNbepE1zNf0NBEsn/6JLmeaWbrrNiEqmjLkbeUiFQ5BBwzXk2k3h0If
pvv58Dp5sRj43ZdFsIhqLfagCf5V1f8B3d15rYNQTgqbXg8DSdRibS7bkbWHN8Pp
WycMJxnoWywMBAFgutJWrUMfQXzd2KfX1ILVQEFB+QqDBDTvvIHpiaBTWwyK2Yp0
g75Nn932hq6Jw2HA+YFG2mkFT9jogVBJle6T0DK3tiby5MwV0RlKN0L1wx9zkIQj
zMycTnHvkp1QdN24WDl0lwHOcHTRNY0z9g0by+s+EMruaqfi1oUYcCDXJks6M1Y=
=XECT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0x2E6B7171.asc
Type: application/pgp-keys
Size: 16591 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-in-workers/attachments/20151213/966a9bc0/attachment.key>