[Pkg-fonts-devel] ttf-gentium review

[Nicolas Spalinger]

>       * Switching package names requires that you add dummy packages for
>         people upgrading from stable/oldstable to a new stable or
>         testing/sid. I suggest not changing the package name unless it
>         is necessary.

It is for consistency with the convention most of the existing packages
have: ttf-$foundry-$nameoffont

>       * I don't think fontforge, fontforge-doc, fonttools need to be in
>         the suggests line.

Why?

It is an open font, and the visibility of fontforge as the tool to
inspect/branch/extend fonts is good. Having the documentation and the
freetype font tools is also useful for a designer willing to do things
with this font.

This is something we want to encourage.

I'm also working on the font metapackage but good suggests (and tags as
well via debtags) is desirable for the open fonts we are packaging.


>       * The OFL file doesn't need to be installed

Why?

The OFL header holds the copyright notice and you should certainly not
remove it. It is also referenced in various descriptions entries.

Various other open fonts released under OFL (including the more recent
ttf-dzongkha) also include it in /usr/share/doc/$name


>       * If they work the reportbug scripts suggested by Nicolas are
>         useful please add them. 

yes, please.


>       * Gentium-RU-Specimen.pdf is non-free and-or needs licence
>         clarification, the main thing is that it says "All other
>         portions of this booklet are ©2002 J. Victor Gaultney. All
>         rights reserved."  I'm also concerned about "Texts from Le
>         Nouveau Testament en Lyélé du Burkina Faso, ©2001 by Wycliffe
>         Bible Translators, used by permission; Holy Bible: New
>         International Version, ©1978 by the New York International Bible
>         Society, used by permission; B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort,
>         eds., The Greek New Testament (1881)." Also the Universal
>         Declaration of Human Rights also doesn't have any
>         copyright/licence information (at least the English version) :)

Yes I agree, these pdfs have currently no distributed source. (There was
a -legal discussion a while ago about problems with such pdfs). But the
example text is used by permission.

If you look at the packaging in svn you can see that the pdf are not
installed in the package.

>         There is also no source code for Gentium-RU-Specimen.pdf and the
>         other PDFs. Nicolas, please check with SIL what the
>         copyright/licence/source code status of the PDFs are. There is
>         the possibility of just preparing a dfsg-compliant version of
>         the orig.tar.gz and adding a script used to generate it to the
>         diff.gz, but I'd rather SIL fix this properly.

Yes, I'm willing to ask for a new upstream tarball to be published.
Seing that work is finally picking up :)

These specimens describing the work done on the fonts will be available
from the upstream website anyway.

The idea of having simple specimen pdfs for fonts is a good thing
though, so people can see how the various glyphs in the font look like
and can print them out especially for complex scripts. But maybe we can
simply generate pngs.


so, please join the team and reflect that in your debian/control:

Maintainers: Debian Fonts Task Force
<pkg-fonts-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org>



-- 
Nicolas Spalinger
http://scripts.sil.org
http://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-fonts/
https://launchpad.net/people/fonts



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20070621/b5b77a68/attachment.pgp