[Pkg-fonts-devel] RFC: t1-urw-garamondno8 fonts for TeX and X

[Rogério Brito]

Dear Danai,

Thank you very much for your comments on the package. I see that I'm
getting somewhere.

On Aug 19 2009, Danai SAE-HAN (韓達耐) wrote:
>   - You might want to remove the watch file if it doesn't serve a purpose. =)

I left it there just in case I was ignorant of any way of checking for
updates in CTAN, but, as you apparently didn't comment on that, I'm
assuming that there's no obvious way.

>   - It would be nice if you could provide a minimal example file with
> all the variants of the font (m/n, m/it, etc.), and state in that same
> example TeX file that slanted is just the same as the italics version.
>  That way people know that there is at least one working file on their
> Debian TeXlive system, and don't have to look in the .fd files to get
> the font name.

Right. A very good idea. I will create a document in the next round of
updates.

>   - I would definitely make use of triggers, so keep the dependency on
> tex-common versioned.

Should I raise the dependency to, say, tex-common (>= 0.20) or keep the
version 0.16?

>   - Restricting the possibility to sell the package is indeed a
> nocando for Debian, so it must be labeled as non-free.  Sorry.

Indeed. I'm thinking of doing something "weird" in the future: as I want
to have a Garamond-like font for use with TeX, I think that I will scan
some books of mine that have Garamond fonts (I'm inclined to choose ITC
Garamond) at a very right resolution, use something like
potrace/autotrace and edit the result in fontforge.

Of course, this is a long-term goal and I think that I may, perhaps, use
some help of some students or so, but that's for the future, as I am on
a "sick leave".

> You might want to publish it on apt-get.org with a big red fat warning
> about the licensing.

Does this part of your comment mean that it can't enter even non-free? I
wouldn't want to use a non-official repository even if it is mine
(unless I misunderstood the purpose of apt-get.org).

>   - I think Debian is indeed phasing out support for defoma.  At
> least, there has been a request from Paul Wise to remove the
> dependency on defoma for several packages (see [1]).
(...)
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?submitter=pabs%40debian.org,
> #540763 and up.

Nice. I will read more about the issue. Thanks for the link.

>   - You might want to increase the debhelper compatibility.

Isn't debhelper v5 enough? Please, advise.

>   - README.Debian is not in UTF-8.

Ooops. I will fix that now. Thanks.


Thank you very much for your comments, Rogério Brito.

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{mackenzie,ime.usp}.br : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito : http://meusite.mackenzie.com.br/rbrito
Projects: algorithms.berlios.de : lame.sf.net : vrms.alioth.debian.org