Dear Ben, thank you very much for your bug report. However, I believe you are wrong with applying RC severity to this issue and I have added FTP-Masters to CC in the hope for clarification.
Ben Finney wrote: > I see now that this refers to a proprietary program named Glyphs, as a > program used in the build procedure. > > So the correct description of this bug is that the package must not be > in Debian until all its build dependencies are also in Debian. See > <URL:https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html> âNon-Mainâ. > > Packages that have a build dependency on a non-Debian package may be > in the âcontribâ archive area. I don't think that it should make a difference if upstream uses proprietary software to convert the fonts from some kind of source format into the OTF format in which they are distributed. There are many fonts in Debian which are only distributed in OTF format, either because upstream uses this format to develop the fonts or because upstream simply does not tell which other format they use. As long as the license allows for binary distribution (and it does) I do not consider this an issue. Generally, there is no canonical source format for fonts and any of the common formats [1] retains the possibility to modify them, e.g. using fontforge scripting. The OTF format is not restricted to being an "end product". This makes a huge difference to e.g. PDF or PS documents which are given as examples in the "Missing Sources" section of the REJECTS FAQs that you refer to. Once converted into these formats, it is nearly impossible to modify the documents or convert them back into their respective source formats. I hope this all makes sense. Thank you , - Fabian [1] Think of e.g. graphics in PNG format of which we have plenty in Debian. It wouldn't help if they were distributed in some other format that upstream chose to use for creating them.