<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>On 2017-05-30 04:14, Fabian Greffrath wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6de2ac08041170bf73773faa4d918265.squirrel@webmail.greffrath.com"><br>
<pre wrap="">conf.avail is meant to contain all available configuration snippets,
whether enabled or not - they are then symlinked into conf.d on purpose.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ah, I misunderstood. Thank you for the education.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6de2ac08041170bf73773faa4d918265.squirrel@webmail.greffrath.com">
<pre wrap="">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).</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think the term "desktop" might be confusing here. I see three
categories<br>
<ol>
<li>Desktop</li>
<li>non HTTP server</li>
<li>HTTP server</li>
</ol>
<p>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
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.debian.org/861938">https://bugs.debian.org/861938</a> but maybe I was not clear.<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6de2ac08041170bf73773faa4d918265.squirrel@webmail.greffrath.com">
<pre wrap="">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. ;)</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mentors.debian.net/package/fonts-sil-annapurna">https://mentors.debian.net/package/fonts-sil-annapurna</a>. The package
with Debian revision -1 has no WOFF files anywhere, -2 has the WOFF
files in the documentation directory.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Thanks, Bobby<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
Bobby de Vos<br>
<em><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bobby_devos@sil.org">bobby_devos@sil.org</a></em><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>