[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#272414: marked as done (Source package should include Fontforge files instead of Type1)

Your message dated Sat, 03 Sep 2022 10:56:41 +0200
with message-id <e113ee078bbcebfc735862d9609fe7fe7b2be85d.camel@greffrath.com>
and subject line closing again with source package version
has caused the Debian Bug report #272414,
regarding Source package should include Fontforge files instead of Type1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
272414: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=272414
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: gsfonts
Version: 8.14+v8.11-0.1
Severity: wishlist

It seems to me that the preferred form for modifying these fonts is
the Fontforge ".sfd" files, rather than the Type1 .pfb/.afm files that
are generated from them. It would be better for the Debian source
package to contain the .sfd files, and to regenerate the Type1 files
at build time.

The .sfd files appear to be available at

ftp://ftp.gnome.ru/fonts/sources/

though I'm not sure if any of the versions there correspond exactly to
the current Debian version.

Another potential difficulty might be that the current process for
making Type1 fonts isn't completely automated, but I see no reason why
it couldn't be.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 20200910-2

Once again without the epoch. Does the BTS track source or binary
package versions?

 - Fabian

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


--- End Message ---
Reply to: