<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>On 2017-05-31 10:12, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:149624712745.7326.7281773258491041029@auryn.jones.dk">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I agree that the WOFFs are not package documentation. They are needed
by the package to make the html/css example files in the documentation
directory display correctly. I was thinking of providing symlinks from
the documentation directory into /usr/share/fonts/woff/packagename/...
once the fontconfig issue is addressed and we can package WOFF.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
If you mean /usr/share/doc/$package then Debian Policy §12.3 forbids
relying on any ressources placed there.
See e.g. Debin Policy §10.7.3 for how instead to use symlinks in
documentation area to the files places elsewhere.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thank you for drawing my attention to those references. If I may
explain the situation, then hopefully I can be instructed how to
handle it correctly.<br>
<br>
Upstream provides a .html file with some sample text. This .html
file refers to a .css file (from the same folder). The .css file
refers to a .woff (also in the same folder) file. If either the
.woff or the .css are removed, the rendering of the text still works
in the web browser, but with default fonts and styling. So the
situation is not broken (that is, the remove of the files does not
break anything) but degraded. The .html and .css can still be used
as examples to people reading those files with something other than
a web browser.<br>
<br>
Where should I put these files?<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>