[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages



On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 13:03 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:36:40PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > 
> > Frankly, the other font formats are so much less useful than modern font
> > formats, the probability someone did creative legal restructuring is
> > much lower.

Anyway, I've amended the proposal in a less format-oriented version
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages

> > The big exception are Type1 fonts but I just hope they can
> > die die die (and if the Tex-Gyre situation is fixed and we can use OTF

> I don't think this may happen in a while because some very interesting
> apps (though not mainstream desktop apps, fortunately) uses type1
> fonts, mostly using t1lib, like xfig, xdvi, grace.

Our TEX can use TTF (OpenType TT) and OTF (OpenType CFF) now. Given that
OTF (OpenType CFF) embeds something very close to what PDF uses, I'd be
surprised if Ghostscript could not use the OTF TEX-Gyre fonts directly.

Do we really have so much interecting stuff that depends on Type1 once
TEX and GS are out of the way?

> > In the meanwhile, it may make sense to add Type1 to the list.
> 
> For tex I believe that it will be too complicated to use the system
> fonts.

TEX now uses the same formats as everyone else (TTF and OTF). I frankly
do not think we can afford (or have the resources) to duplicate megs of
fonts in TEX-specific packages. If TEX can not use the fonts in
fontconfig directories, it just has to symlink them somewhere it can.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]