[Pkg-fonts-devel] [RFS] fonts-georgewilliams

Vasudev Kamath kamathvasudev at gmail.com
Sat Apr 19 13:46:51 UTC 2014

Francesca Ciceri <madamezou at zouish.org> writes:

> Hi Vasudev,
> thanks for the review :)

No problem :)

> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:54:15PM +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Francesca Ciceri <madamezou at zouish.org> wrote:
>> > Also, I'm not sure if it's ok to ask for review/sponsorship of the
>> > package directly here or if it's better go throught mentors, let me
>> > know!
>> You can ask for review and sponsor here on pkg-fonts, and here is a
>> quick review after checking various files under debian, I think its
>> better to move debian/copyright file to new format [1] other than that
>> Standards-Version which you already mentioned that you will update.
> While I was changing the debian/copyright file I noticed a couple of
> things:
>  - upstream now provides the sources for this font see [1]
>  - he added OFL as license, so the fonts are apparently dual-licensed
>    now (BSD+OFL)
>  - he doesn't really use a version number

You can try using otfinfo tool from lcdf-typetools package which is a
nice utility to check information from the font, use

   otfinfo -i fontfile.ttf

And see if version number is provided there, most of times they provide
version number there and don't  include in font file.

> It would make sense to probably include the sources in the package, and
> generate the ttf via fontforge. I've looked a bit at how this is done in
> other packages (fonts-dejavu mainly) and I think I can experiment a bit
> with this kind of change.
> I'll update the license situation, so that now we have: source →
> OFL/BSD, debian/* files GPL.

Quoting Christian's mail

> I fully support this. When possible, rebuilding the fonts at build
> time should be encouraged. Some people debate this because, sometimes,
> FF is known to have weird bahaviour (supposedly) but, well, it would
> be more or less like not rebuilding C code because, sometimes, GCC
> changes its behaviour.

I agree here to build from source file provided source is in sfd
(Fontforge) format!, but I will also want to add one more information
here just make sure that its built without having in quirks, i.e. using
some sort of generate.pe file giving sfd as input. Why I'm telling this
is I've seen some time upstream doing some hacks on sfd before building
ttf file, if we miss this step generated ttf file will not be same as
shipped by upstream and might end up in some rendering issues.

Besides this I'm all for building from source :)

> Does that makes sense for fonts that are not updated by upstream since
> ages (2004 the more recent update, but they all are more or less
> 2002-2003 according to upstream homepage)? I don't use them, and I
> started to work on this just to help with the migration. I feel like the
> stray dog followed me home :).
> But, I'm using this package to learn, and it's great on that point of
> view, I'm just not sure on a team-wide point of view how much this work
> makes sense.

Quoting Christian's mail

> It fully makes sense because :
> - it makes you learn new things
> - it brings some discussion in this list
> - it helps cleaning out packages thathaven't received much attention
>  for ages

> So, keep up with the good work, definitely.

I completely agree with Christian here, please clean the package up
:). pkg-fonts is really needs more hands, we have very less active
people but huge number of packages :-).

Vasudev Kamath
Connect on ~friendica: copyninja at samsargika.copyninja.info
IRC nick: copyninja | vasudev {irc.oftc.net | irc.freenode.net}
GPG Key: C517 C25D E408 759D 98A4  C96B 6C8F 74AE 8770 0B7E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 818 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20140419/f6ebd4b1/attachment.sig>

More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list