> Does anyone have any objections if we standardize that as a
> policyrecommendation and update the lintian tests to match?Not at all, please
> go ahead!Cheers, - Fabian Von meinem/meiner Galaxy gesendet
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------Von: Soren Stoutner <[email protected]>
Datum: 11.06.26 22:22 (GMT+01:00) An: [email protected], Debian Fonts
<[email protected]> Betreff: Re: Bug#1116004: fonts-noto:
fonts-noto-web is wrong On Thursday, June 11, 2026 1:05:20 PM Mountain Standard
Time Fabian Greffrath wrote:> > Is anyone aware of any problems caused by the
packages that do place themin> > /usr/share/fonts/WOFF/ or> >
/usr/share/fonts/WOFF2/?> >
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=8> > 63835This refers to
Xetex, but may apply to other applications as well. -That is an informative
bug report. The upstream conversation indicates it still isn’t
resolved.https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/fontconfig/fontconfig/-/work_items/92Based
on that, I think Debian should consider it a bug for WOFF or WOFF2 fonts to be
installed under /usr/share/fonts/.It appears that the convention currently used
by several packages
is:/usr/share/fonts-fontname/woff//usr/share/fonts-fontname/woff2/Does anyone
have any objections if we standardize that as a policy recommendation and
update the lintian tests to match?-- Soren [email protected]
