[Pkg-fonts-devel] The 0-th (very) rough (and incomplete) draft of a Font Policy

Paul Wise pabs at debian.org
Sun Mar 27 05:36:30 UTC 2011

2011/3/26 Rogério Brito <rbrito at ime.usp.br>:

> * The definition of what a font foundry is.

I just had a thought about this; how is the foundry relevant? For
example we wouldn't name a Firefox package mozilla-firefox nor
Chromium B.S.U. pabs-chromium-bsu nor Chromium google-chromium so why
should fonts be any different? I don't think we should mention
foundries at all in package/directory/file names. Mentioning them in
the package description would be fine and of course the homepage would
probably contain the name of the foundry in the domain.

> * The issue of whether we should compile fonts or not for redistribution.

There are other cases where we don't do this for non-fonts, for
example autotools build systems or PDF documents. I personally think
we should err on the side of always compiling fonts (and everything
else). My thoughts here are guided by the first 3 items in the Debian
Social Contract. I haven't yet read the thread about this a while ago
so I'm not completely informed about all the issues yet.

> Please, criticize stuff, put it in some repository, fill it in, send
> patches, give feedback, etc.

I'd like for us to contribute any policy we come up with back to
debian-policy and the developers-reference

One comment about the removal of glyphs bit, that only happens in
udebs, which are as small as possible so there isn't any point
mentioning the removal in README.Debian, since folks who care will be
using the source package anyway.



More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list