[Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#699322: status of liberation fonts 2.00.1 in Debian unstable?

Pravin Satpute psatpute at redhat.com
Tue Aug 16 11:28:12 UTC 2016

On Tuesday 16 August 2016 04:26 PM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Dear Holger and Pravin,
>> any reasons not to upload 2.00.1-2 to unstable? #699322 mentions the
>> missing Sans Narrow font, but I think it's still a worthwhile
>> improvement as it is…
> I agree that it might make sense to finally upload fonts-liberation 2.00.1
> to unstable. The loss of the Sans Narrow variant can certainly be coped
> with, given how bad it is hinted and the overall better quality (and
> license) of the 2.x branch.
> However, I 'd like to know upstream's view on the general status of the
> liberation fonts first:
> @Pravin: What is the current upstream status of the liberation fonts
> package? The repository has not seen any activity for more than two years
> now. Are the liberation fonts considered obsolete and superseeded by the
> Croscore fonts (Arimo, Tinos and Cousine)?
Liberation 1.* are not equivalent to Croscore. Since Liberation 1.* are
manual bytecode hinting information.
Liberation 2.* are equivalent to Croscore. Only difference is, in
Liberation fonts we are doing is more opensource way, i.e. maintaining
its source file and generating it with our tools while Croscore is just
ttf and mostly that is provided by proprietary vendor.

Liberation 2.0 is still active project but somehow i am not able to find
time for it. But its in plan, so may be in next release in 3-6 months
(or even sooner).
>  The latter are now packaged in
> Debian as part of src:fonts-noto and covered by the SIL Open Font License.
> So, what do you think, does it still make sense to maintain the liberation
> fonts in Debian or should we rather transition to the Croscore fonts
> instead?
Differences are as above, so feel free to take decision :)

Pravin Satpute

More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list