On Tuesday, September 15, 2026 4:00:00 PM Mountain Standard Time Changwoo Ryu wrote: > Control: tag -1 - wontfix > > 2026년 9월 16일 (수) 오전 3:59, Bastian Germann <[email protected]>님이 작성: > > Control: reopen -1 > > > > No, the TTF file is not the preferred form for modification in this > > case. This is demonstrated by upstream publishing vfb files. > > Existence of upstream VFB alone doesn't mean a lack of source. A TTF > can be a source even when it is built from other files.
I just wanted to add my voice to the fact that Bastian is correct in this case. The binary TTF file is not the source. > > It is furthermore the case because the font contains Visual True Type > > hinting information, which is sourceful in vfb but is compiled to > > bytecode in the TTF. > > OK, so it makes the TTF non-source. This information was needed when > you submitted the bug. > > I know a guy who edited hinting bytecode assembly in fontforge > manually in the TTF file he released, but that was an exceptional > case. > > > So I am reopening this bug. Please do not just close bugs that you have > > not handled. > > I have handled it by explaining. Bugs can be closed if they are > believed to be not actual problems. Well, Debian BTS doesn't have > clear documentation about not-a-bug cases. But it doesn't mean such > bugs should be kept open forever. > > > I volunteer to make the change but I expect that you would revert the > > change (as you are about to do for other fonts). So I want to be sure > > that I am not wasting my time. > > Lexi fonts are not worth the effort nowadays. popcon count is zero. > > So practically, I'm going to request removal instead. Because Bastian has already volunteered to do the work, I think it would be inappropriate of you to request removal. You can always just orphan the package if you are no longer interested in maintaining it. -- Soren Stoutner [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
