> Maybe now is the time?Indeed my plan is to tackle this issue in about four
> weeks. - Fabian Von meinem/meiner Galaxy gesendet
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------Von: Chris Hofstaedtler
<z...@debian.org> Datum: 28.07.22 01:02 (GMT+01:00) An: Fabian Greffrath
<fab...@greffrath.com>, 977...@bugs.debian.org Cc: Jonas Smedegaard
<d...@jones.dk>, Paul Gevers <elb...@debian.org> Betreff: Re: Bug#977765:
[Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#977765: src:gsfonts: package
superseded by fonts-urw-base35 * Fabian Greffrath <fab...@greffrath.com>
[220727 23:01]:[..]> My stance on this: In theory it should be technically
possible to replace> the gsfonts (and gsfonts-x11) package with
fonts-urw-base35 and I believe> this would be the right step, given that the
latter font set is actively> maintained and extended - and actually used by
ghostscript both upstream and> in Debian. And as a matter of fact, I have
prepared this transition since I> uploaded the fonts-urw-base35 package for the
first time. So, why haven't I> triggered this transition yet?[..]> So, to
summarize: Yes, I think we should replace gsfonts+gsfonts-x11 with>
fonts-urw-base35 at a given time and this transition is already prepared for>
the most part. But I don't see this as a pressing issue right now, given the>
lack of real-world issues this apparently causes, given the lack of bug>
reports we received during the past 5 years - and given how late in the>
release cycle we are to introduce a potentially disruptive change like
this.Maybe now is the time?Chris
