Re: Bug#156852: ITP: ttf-dustismo -- general purpose gpl'ed truetype sans serif font
Ben Armstrong said the following in the thread above called Linux Fonts: I question the name free-ttfonts. The convention seems to be: ttf[-foundryname]-fontorfamilyname I think I know why this conventon developed for true-type fonts: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/debiangrep-available -F Package ttf- -s Package,Installed-Size | grep Installed-Size Installed-Size: 1512 Installed-Size: 2424 Installed-Size: 5948 Installed-Size: 3830 Installed-Size: 12484 Installed-Size: 2704 Installed-Size: 1300 Installed-Size: 28534 Installed-Size: 4660 Installed-Size: 960 Installed-Size: 5204 Installed-Size: 4244 Installed-Size: 10308 (The 960 is a false positive; libttf-dev). All of these packages are quite large, probably because they're all mostly languages with large complex character sets such as asian languages. That doesn't mean we have to mindlessly stick to it when packaging a 100k font though. We also have the example of freefont, which used uner 3 mb for 79 smaller type 1 fonts. Note the existing freefont and sharefont packages, which were compiled by a Debian developer. Why should truetype fonts be packaged any differently? I don't think they should. My original intent was to make a free-ttffont package, and I'd rather do that. That makes sense to me. -- see shy jo
Re: Bug#156852: ITP: ttf-dustismo -- general purpose gpl'ed truetype sans serif font
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 12:12:41AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: That doesn't mean we have to mindlessly stick to it when packaging a 100k font though. We also have the example of freefont, which used uner 3 mb for 79 smaller type 1 fonts. No, but neither does it mean we need to follow the freefont example. That case is a licensing nightmare and is in non-free. Even though the proposed package would be entirely free, you still may end up with a mishmash of licenses. So what is to be done about that? One package per license? One per foundry? I'm not sure what kind of grouping makes sense. Note the existing freefont and sharefont packages, which were compiled by a Debian developer. Why should truetype fonts be packaged any differently? I don't think they should. My original intent was to make a free-ttffont package, and I'd rather do that. That makes sense to me. I would rather see some compromise between one font per package and all fonts in one package. Some breakdown of fonts into separate packages is convenient for users who want to pick and choose. And in particular, I think it's nice if a game can say Depends: ttf-blah instead of having its own private copy of a given font. If, on the other hand, the font is one of 80 in a 3M package, it is less attractive to do so, which is going to encourage maintainers to leave the font as an embedded font in the package (which is probably how upstream distributes it). Ben -- nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ pgp key fingerprint = 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ] [ gpg key fingerprint = 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]
Re: Bug#156852: ITP: ttf-dustismo -- general purpose gpl'ed truetype sans serif font
Ben Armstrong wrote: Meta package. A virtual package is something quite different. It is not a package itself, but rather a package name, named in the Provides: control field, thus emacs21 and emacs20 both have Provides of the virutal package emacsen. A meta package, on the other hand, is a real package that has nothing but control information in it, usually Depends: so when you install the meta package it causes a group of other packages to be installed. If I gave the impression that the grouping should be by foundry, that is not what I meant. I think I mentioned that the foundry may be present in the name of each actual font package, but that is all. I imagined a good grouping would be by function, i.e. fonts suitable for foo. The grouping I suggested was ttf-latin for a nice collection of fonts supporting latin characters. I don't understand the reasoning behind bloating debian with a buch of little packages that each include one font file. Can you explain? Note the existing freefont and sharefont packages, which were compiled by a Debian developer. Why should truetype fonts be packaged any differently? -- see shy jo
Re: Bug#156852: ITP: ttf-dustismo -- general purpose gpl'ed truetype sans serif font
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 12:21:36PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: Ben Armstrong wrote: Meta package. A virtual package is something quite different. It is not a package itself, but rather a package name, named in the Provides: control field, thus emacs21 and emacs20 both have Provides of the virutal package emacsen. A meta package, on the other hand, is a real package that has nothing but control information in it, usually Depends: so when you install the meta package it causes a group of other packages to be installed. If I gave the impression that the grouping should be by foundry, that is not what I meant. I think I mentioned that the foundry may be present in the name of each actual font package, but that is all. I imagined a good grouping would be by function, i.e. fonts suitable for foo. The grouping I suggested was ttf-latin for a nice collection of fonts supporting latin characters. I don't understand the reasoning behind bloating debian with a buch of little packages that each include one font file. Can you explain? Ben Armstrong said the following in the thread above called Linux Fonts: I question the name free-ttfonts. The convention seems to be: ttf[-foundryname]-fontorfamilyname when I proposed the free-ttffonts package. So, I was planning on making a package for each source of fonts. He also suggested the use of a meta package. Note the existing freefont and sharefont packages, which were compiled by a Debian developer. Why should truetype fonts be packaged any differently? I don't think they should. My original intent was to make a free-ttffont package, and I'd rather do that. I guess since you're a dd and you were in the front row at debconf, that gives you a little seniority over Ben. ;) Seriously, I'd like to reach a consensus about this. Any more objections to a freettffonts package? I have received a few responses from font developers, so there will be a number of sources of ttf fonts. thanks michael -- michael cardenas | lead software engineer | lindows.com | hyperpoem.net Being is what it is. - Jean-Paul Sartre pgpwyrFmgqXCm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#156852: ITP: ttf-dustismo -- general purpose gpl'ed truetype sans serif font
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 10:50:42PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 04:35:01PM -0700, Michael Cardenas wrote: Ben suggested that I make a package for each foundry, and then a virtual package that includes all of them. If Dustin agrees to gpl the rest of his fonts, I'll just make a ttf-cheapskate package. Meta package. A virtual package is something quite different. It is not a package itself, but rather a package name, named in the Provides: control field, thus emacs21 and emacs20 both have Provides of the virutal package emacsen. A meta package, on the other hand, is a real package that has nothing but control information in it, usually Depends: so when you install the meta package it causes a group of other packages to be installed. If I gave the impression that the grouping should be by foundry, that is not what I meant. I think I mentioned that the foundry may be present in the name of each actual font package, but that is all. I imagined a good grouping would be by function, i.e. fonts suitable for foo. The grouping I suggested was ttf-latin for a nice collection of fonts supporting latin characters. Ben ttf-latin sounds great. I'll make a meta package called ttf-latin, and make it depend on ttf-dustismo and any others I can find. thanks ben. -- michael cardenas | lead software engineer | lindows.com | hyperpoem.net You never enjoy the world aright, till the sea itself floweth in your veins, till you are clothed with the heavens, and crowned with the stars. - Thomas Traherne pgpJdKgSzyFgz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#156852: ITP: ttf-dustismo -- general purpose gpl'ed truetype sans serif font
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 03:34:32PM -0700, Michael Cardenas wrote: You will need xfs-xtt to view this font properly. This is plain wrong. Since XFree86 4.0 we don't need xfs-xtt to use a True-Type font. Please don't put this sentence in your description. Christophe -- Christophe Barbé [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8 F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann pgplO8gDu18MF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#156852: ITP: ttf-dustismo -- general purpose gpl'ed truetype sans serif font
Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-15 Severity: wishlist * Package name: ttf-dustismo Version : 1.0 Upstream Author : Dustin Mofos [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://www.cheapskatefonts.com * License : GPL Description : general purpose gpl'ed truetype sans serif font Dustismo is a sans serif TrueType font that is licensed under the GPL. You will need xfs-xtt to view this font properly. It is suitable for daily use. -- System Information Debian Release: 3.0 Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux rilke 2.4.19 #3 SMP Fri Aug 9 23:00:09 PDT 2002 i686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=
Re: Bug#156852: ITP: ttf-dustismo -- general purpose gpl'ed truetype sans serif font
I proposed this on debian-devel, but Ben disagreed. I would be more than happy to create a truetype fonts package to replace the nonfree xfree86-scalable package and the recently defunct msttcorefonts. This was my original intent. Ben suggested that I make a package for each foundry, and then a virtual package that includes all of them. If Dustin agrees to gpl the rest of his fonts, I'll just make a ttf-cheapskate package. I didn't ITP the virtual package yet because I haven't located any other gpl'ed tt fonts. I do have a list of original font authors though, and I plan to write to some of them tonight. Also, there's a project at metatype.sourceforge.net that has a gpl'ed, but incomplete, tt font based on D.Knuth's Computer Modern font. I plan to include that one, but I was waiting to hear from the author first. I emailed him last night and haven't received a response yet. thanks michael On Fri, Aug 16, 2002 at 01:24:39AM +0200, Bas Zoetekouw wrote: Hi Michael! You wrote: Dustismo is a sans serif TrueType font that is licensed under the GPL. You will need xfs-xtt to view this font properly. It is suitable for daily use. Couldn't we, instead of packaging each font seperately, rather compile a nice set of free truetype fonts in one package? -- michael cardenas | lead software engineer | lindows.com | hyperpoem.net When making your choice in life, do not neglect to live. - Samuel Johnson pgpPMLbTKUhMv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#156852: ITP: ttf-dustismo -- general purpose gpl'ed truetype sans serif font
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 04:35:01PM -0700, Michael Cardenas wrote: Ben suggested that I make a package for each foundry, and then a virtual package that includes all of them. If Dustin agrees to gpl the rest of his fonts, I'll just make a ttf-cheapskate package. Meta package. A virtual package is something quite different. It is not a package itself, but rather a package name, named in the Provides: control field, thus emacs21 and emacs20 both have Provides of the virutal package emacsen. A meta package, on the other hand, is a real package that has nothing but control information in it, usually Depends: so when you install the meta package it causes a group of other packages to be installed. If I gave the impression that the grouping should be by foundry, that is not what I meant. I think I mentioned that the foundry may be present in the name of each actual font package, but that is all. I imagined a good grouping would be by function, i.e. fonts suitable for foo. The grouping I suggested was ttf-latin for a nice collection of fonts supporting latin characters. Ben -- nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ pgp key fingerprint = 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ] [ gpg key fingerprint = 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]
