[Pkg-fonts-devel] Update for fonts-sil-annapurna

Bobby de Vos bobby_devos at sil.org
Tue May 30 23:14:10 UTC 2017

On 2017-05-30 04:14, Fabian Greffrath wrote:

> conf.avail is meant to contain all available configuration snippets,
> whether enabled or not - they are then symlinked into conf.d on purpose.

Ah, I misunderstood. Thank you for the education.

> Regarding the purpose of this fontconfig snipped, I disagree. There was a
> lengthy debate on this list not so long ago about whether fontconfig
> should expose fonts in all available formats (e.g. WOFF) to its users and
> let them take care if they support the returned format or if fontconfig
> should restrict itself to common formats for "desktop" usage (although
> there are already examples given of packages that use fontconfig but are
> in no way restricted to either desktop or server usage).

I think the term "desktop" might be confusing here. I see three categories

 1. Desktop
 2. non HTTP server
 3. HTTP server

I can see case 1 and 2 using fontconfig, but the W3 text that Nico
mentions seems (to me at least) a very different usage case. I tried to
mention this in my bug report https://bugs.debian.org/861938 but maybe I
was not clear.

> The initiation of this debate was, btw, a package that already has its
> WOFF variant installed into a fontconfig-aware location, so if there is
> any harm in this, it is already done and I don't think that
> fonts-sil-annapurna should necessarily be the first package to revert
> this. ;)

I agree, the issue comes up in several font packages from SIL-NRSI (and
maybe some others as well). I used fonts-sil-annapurna as an example
since a new version of the font had been released upstream, and I needed
to package it for our own internal use. The package
fonts-sil-andikanewbasic (where the issue was originally reported) did
not need to be updated to a new upstream release, so I choose not to
start there. I apologize if this was the wrong thing to do.

For either of these packages, would you accept the WOFF files under the
package documentation directory? If not, would you accept the package
not containing WOFF files at all (in any location)? Those two situations
have both been packaged at
https://mentors.debian.net/package/fonts-sil-annapurna. The package with
Debian revision -1 has no WOFF files anywhere, -2 has the WOFF files in
the documentation directory.

I hope this email will help you, so that you do not have to spend time
reviewing a package that has a known issue. I can create -3 if need be.

Thanks, Bobby

Bobby de Vos
/bobby_devos at sil.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20170530/50dc8549/attachment.html>

More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list