[Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#686098: Fonts from package misbehave in exported PDF

[Christian PERRIER]

Quoting Khaled Hosny (khaledhosny at eglug.org):

> Right, and I checked other fonts-* package and there is indeed large
> inconsistency and I can’t tell what is the rule for including or
> omitting foundry name, it seems random.

(dropping individuals from CC list, I guess all are subscribed to one
or another of the destinations)

Yes, we've been inconsistent. Mostly because our "specification" has
been built over trial and error and we probably didn't really consider
all possible cases.

I'm balanced about the value added by including the foundry name in
the package name. The current practice is more to use one when the
foundry is really something that can be called this way.

The case where thefoundry is an individual is probably a case where we
would choose to *not* include a foundry name, unless the said
individual insists that his|her name to be mentioned in the package
name.

So, yeah, we probably misnnamed your fonts, Khaled..:-)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20121005/2f597447/attachment.pgp>