[Pkg-fonts-devel] ttf-gentium review

[Nicolas Spalinger]

>>>       * I don't think fontforge, fontforge-doc, fonttools need to be in
>>>         the suggests line.
>> Why?
> 
> IMO because they aren't needed by most users of the package.

I see, but the intent is that many "users" are going to be designers who
would want to know what tools are suggested for that package.

IMHO this is useful information for a section of the audience and
information easily ignored by other users.

Same things as with debtags, not everybody is interested in all the
various "facets" but it helps some people make the most of the package.

What do others think?


>>>       * The OFL file doesn't need to be installed
>> Why?
> 
> The OFL is quoted in the copyright file, IMO we don't need 2 copies of
> the OFL in the package.

OK, that makes sense. But we will need to make many changes to various
existing packages which reference OFL.txt

There were no litian complaints or archive rejects for such packages.


IMHO it would very be useful to add the  XS-Vcs-svn: field
as per Dev reference 6.2.5.2.


Thanks again for your feedback and help, Paul :-)

And thanks to you Gürkan for picking up on Gentium maintainership again.


All good discussion items for the future packaging policy, I guess.



-- 
Nicolas Spalinger
http://scripts.sil.org
http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org
https://launchpad.net/~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/dd3301b3/attachment.pgp