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

Christian PERRIER bubulle at debian.org
Sun Oct 7 06:10:41 UTC 2012

Quoting Fabian Greffrath (fabian at greffrath.com):
> Am Freitag, den 05.10.2012, 18:22 +0200 schrieb Christian PERRIER:
> > 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.
> So you'd say "fonts-gust-{texgyre,lmodern}" is the way to go?

Well, my position is : "is 'gust' something that really can be called
a 'foundry', basically an organization that includes font creation in
its objectives/goals" and "is there a need expressedby them for their
name to remain mentioned" (that last item includes having the foundry
name in the font name, as we have in SIL fonts).

In this case both fonts-gust-{texgyre,lmodern} and
fonts-{texgyre,lmodern} seem acceptable, so adding "gust" should be
done only if "needed" by the above vague rule.

Sorry, this is vague and prone to interpretation but I don't really
see away to carve a rule in stone and cover all cases..:-)

-------------- 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/20121007/3ba74855/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list