Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477450 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[email protected] AssignedTo|[email protected] |[email protected] --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <[email protected]> 2009-03-07 03:27:25 EDT --- I got ACL for this package and I made an attempt to separate the fonts: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1228226 There are 3 .pfa fonts in this package are, two of them are derived from lilypond's feta fonts and 1 is derived from lilypond's parmesan fonts. It is fairly difficult to produce these .pfa files from source .mf files. Two of these fonts can be converted from .pfb files (that are available in lilypond builds) to .pfa files, but unfortunately lilypond's current tarball doesn't contain the sources for the last font (feta-nummer10) anymore. Note that lilypond only offers .pfb files and no .pfa files. I also saw that the glyph names are modified from the original lilypond source files. Well, maybe the names of these glyphs were so in an older version of lilypond. So, there is a tiny possibility that if we were to use the current lilypond fonts, rosegarden might misbehave. Hence I made two subpackages rosegarden4-feta-fonts (contains 2 .pfa files) rosegarden4-parmesan-fonts (contains 1 .pfa file) Let me know if I need to do any other changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
