[Pkg-fonts-devel] [RFS] fonts-georgewilliams

[Francesca Ciceri]

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 06:34:12PM +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Francesca Ciceri (madamezou at zouish.org):
> 
> > As a note: upstream doesn't use versioning of any kind, but as the first
> > upstream version was named 1.0 for the Debian packaging, I named this
> > one 2.0. Let me know if that's ok.
> 
> 
> Not even in either the SFD files or the generated TTF files, i guess?

I checked the SFD files and even for the files updated, the version is
still 1.0.
Not sure how to proceed here... :(


> In such case, I tend to choose to use the upstream release dateif I
> can find it....or at worst the date at which you picked up the file
> from upstream's web site.
> 
> So, something like 20140514-1 for instance.
> 
> It's not perfect either but it has (IMHO) the advantage of clearly
> saying "hey, upstream doesn't use any versioning system so I decided
> to invent one"
> 

Yes sounds sensible.

The problem with upstream release date, in this case, is that we are
talking here about a series of different fonts (Caliban, Caslon, Cupola,
Monospace) released each one as a single sfd file (for each variant of
the font) in different dates. See http://fontforge.org/sfds/ (upstream
homepage).
What I did was take all the .sfd and put them in a tar.gz. But they were
released or updated individually, not all together.
This is why I used the 2.0 notation.

I guess we can pick the most recent date (which is
23 October 2003) or the date I picked the files.

What does it seems better to you?

Many thanks for your reply!

Cheers,
Francesca


-- 
"Fuck it! Thank you! I love you all!"
Streetlight Manifesto, Point/Counterpoint
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20140515/742765cc/attachment.sig>