Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-09-21 23:10:52) > On Sunday, September 20, 2026 11:56:13 PM Mountain Standard Time Fabian > Greffrath wrote: > > files in EOT-format are hopelessly obsolete. IIRC they were only > > compatible with Internet Explorer (not even Edge)! > > > > I don't think Debian package should ship them at all, but I wouldn't > > care if they need to be included for some odd reason (haven't checked > > the GIMP case, for example). I would consider them entirely private to > > the package that contains them, like other stuff in e.g. > > /usr/share/<package>. Thus, I see no reason to factor them out into a > > fonts-eot-<package> package. Let's not encourage that, please. > > > > We should, however, take care to keep them out of the /usr/share/fonts > > name space under any circumstances! This should be the only necessary > > check in my opinion. > > It turns out there are a lot more EOT fonts being shipped in Debian than I > assumed. Attached is a list with 1436 entries. Most of these are shipped in > private locations, many of them as part of documentation. However, the > following packages ship them under /usr/share/fonts: > > fonts-font-awesome-legacy > fonts-fork-awesome > fonts-material-design-icons-iconfont > fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont > fonts-roboto-fontface > > Perhaps it would be best to update the wiki to state that EOT fonts should be > shipped in /usr/share/font-fontname/eot. The new woff-font-in-wrong-dir tag > could be renamed web-font-in-wrong-dir.
I fully agree with Fabian here: It has zero relevancy for the Fonts team to establish a common place to an (ever) obsolete technology. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
