On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:41 AM, James Godfrey-Kittle wrote: > Well, I suppose that makes sense since there is the option to build the > fonts. However I must point out that having sources for fonts is unusual > (probably because the distinction between source and binary is less clear > than with software), but that doesn't prevent other appropriately licensed > fonts from inclusion in Debian.
Binary font formats like TrueType and OpenType can either be font source or not font source, depending on how the upstream font designers are working on their fonts. If they just open the TTF/OTF/etc in their font editor, make changes and save, then the TTF/OTF/etc are source. In any other cases the TTF/OTF/etc probably are not source. In the case of Roboto there is clear evidence that the TTF/OTF/etc files are not font source so we have to ship the source and build the TTF/OTF/etc. There are a number of fonts in Debian with non-binary source forms, see for example anything that Build-Depends on fontforge. For TTF/OTF/etc fonts in Debian there is either evidence that upstream edits binary source forms, no evidence of other source forms or more likely, no-one has asked upstream how they develop their fonts. If you are aware of any particular fonts that should be built from source but aren't, please do file bug reports on the corresponding Debian packages. If you are involved in the upstream font development community (I guess you are?), please encourage these practices: Develop fonts in a VCS such as git using non-binary non-proprietary source formats. Don't commit any generated files to git, use an automated build system and attach the build products to github releases/tags when using github. Develop fonts using Free Software build/edit tools and formats accessible to them and avoid proprietary tools and formats like Glyphsapp. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise