[Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#776273: [googlefonts-discuss] sfd files for Play font

Dave Crossland dave at lab6.com
Fri Oct 2 13:27:52 UTC 2015

On Oct 2, 2015 4:49 AM, "Paul Wise" <pabs at debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:49:33 -0400 Dave Crossland wrote:
> > All the source files there not available elsewhere will resurface in
> > github.com/googlefonts/ soon :)
> Why there instead of the google fonts repository?
> https://github.com/google/fonts/
> What is the relationship between the googlefonts repos and the google
> fonts repo? It seems a bit weird to have two places for the same stuff.

Sources and binaries are not the same stuff.

> > Sadly the RFN is a problem here.
> ...
> > BTW I believe that Debian must rename all OFL-RFN fonts (just as with
> > Firefox.)
> Ugh.
> Probably best to do the renaming upstream.

I ask people to drop the rfn, but when they refuse, I get permission for
Google to use the rfn (and trademark.)

However, for the source repos, this could be a good idea. I can ask about

> You'll still have to retain
> the OFL-RFN but the official name of the font will not be a RFN so
> Debian and other distros will be free to patch as needed.

The official name is the rfn name; that's why the maintainer reserved the
name. The distros need to rename or get permission. Same as Firefox.

> > The *-TTF.sfd files were the exact TTFs in SFD format, so generating
> > more or less directly should do that; the export would need a few
> > flags, like this:
> It would be nice if Google could standardise on font source formats and
> font build tools so that re-distributors would have an easier time.

The font development community is not uniform, like the software
development community is not uniform in choice of text editor, ide, distro,
etc. It would be like asking everyone to use eclipse on fedora.

I do suggest today using the afdko, but not all developers are familiar
with it. Most of the projects are not actively maintained and predate the
liberation of the fdk.

> I would suggest using UFO for the source format is probably best.

Ufo is not great as a source format, it lacks structures for a lot of basic
source data types. If you use RoboFont it stores a lot in the private data
areas, essentially forking the format. Glyphs and sfd formats are  richer.

> Not sure about build tools but I guess Python things such as Google's
> fonttools are probably the most portable across Win/Mac/Linux.

Behdads FontTools isn't a compiler, and is now maintained by a community of
mostly non google developers btw.

The Google Roboto github repo has a ttf compiler branch under development,
but it's far from ready.

Fontforge is another libre compiler but it's not good quality, so I suggest
avoiding it where possible.

> --
> bye,
> pabs
> https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20151002/9ef917fe/attachment.html>

More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list