[Pkg-fonts-devel] RFC: Planning an Intial Font Policy
dave at lab6.com
Thu Nov 11 18:52:38 UTC 2010
On 12 November 2010 00:35, Nicolas Spalinger <nicolas_spalinger at sil.org> wrote:
> On 10/11/10 21:25, Dave Crossland wrote:
>> On 10 November 2010 20:00, Nicolas Spalinger <nicolas_spalinger at sil.org> wrote:
>>> The few fonts we currently build from
>>> source are the exception. Placing a strict requirement on this
>>> now is very counter-productive.
>> Could someone kindly explain to me, as a newbie here, why fonts that
>> have a non-free build path are packaged in main and not contrib? :-)
> Ha, nice try! (oh, the delicious irony of asking that kind of question
> from a hosted service that AFAICT is not exactly Franklin Street
> Statement-friendly... from your new MacBook maybe? SCR.)
> There have been plenty of discussions on this both IRL and in the
> pkg-fonts team (see the archives)...
> And yet you regularly come back to this. What is your point exactly?
You seem agitated by my question. I attempted to ask it in a kind and
respectful way, and I am sorry if it came across as in some way
aggressive or negative. That was not my intention at all.
I have forgotten the details of previous discussions, and so I ask
again. Thank you for your patience with me in re-explaining :-)
My limited understanding of Debian is that when a free package has a
non-free dependency it is put in 'contrib' not 'main.' It seems free
fonts with non-free dependencies are put in 'main.' I am not
suggesting that already packaged fonts ought to be put in contrib, but
I would like to understand why existing packages are packaged as they
I am asking this because I am about to start packaging a large number
of libre fonts, most of which have proprietary build paths, and I want
to know the full details about how I might package them, and the whys
for the hows.
> Trying to push for all the fonts to be
> pulled from the Debian archive to better fit your views on licensing?
> What would we gain from this exactly?
I did not suggest all the fonts to be pulled from the Debian archive;
nor did I push for it. I simply asked to explain why the fonts are
packaged as they are.
> Now if I may ask, how's the fully reproducible self-contained build-path
> coming on for your own fonts? And the corresponding packaging for
> Fedora? Considering the growth in coverage and complexity ahead?
I haven't documented the build path of my fonts, but you can be
assured that it is all using published libre software. I have not done
any Fedora packaging yet either. I hope you will ask me specific
questions about both to help me clarify my own thinking before I do
them, and I hope you will also explain in detail what I could improve
when I do them :-)
More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel