Am Dienstag, den 27.08.2013, 18:11 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > How about package name fonts-base35-urw? That indicating both a) the > aim of the bundle and b) the owner/maintainer of it.
We actually have a font packaging policy: https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy So, the foundry has to come first in the package name. Artifex calls the fonts artifex_core35 on their download page, so I think I'd prefer "fonts-urw-core35", but "-base35" should be alright as well. > Both urw and ghostscript are used: > http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=ghostscript-fonts > http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=urw-fonts That's interesting! The former package contains fonts from the GNU ghostscript fork whereas the latter contains the fork with added cyrilic glyphs. Neither of them contains the pristine URW fonts or the ones shipped by ghostscript itself. > Yes, I got that confirmed upstream now too. I want to test a bit first, > but will probably drop those fonts from Debian packaging of Ghostscript > (also strip them from source, to sidestep bug#720906). Cool, that would be at least one copy less, only two more to go (though it will get hard to convince the LaTeX maintainers to replace their copy with the updated set from ghostscript). - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
