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=507261 --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot <[email protected]> 2009-06-22 02:27:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Number 1 of "Package layout for fonts" in the URL mentioned in comment #3 > should be updated like the following: > > Fonts released upstream in separate archives MUST be packaged in separate > source packages (src.rpm), unless they belong to the same font family. If > fonts > released upstream are also released as a merged archive, this rule will not > applied. Due to how rpm dependency resolution work that would make impossible to implement multi-criterium font search & auto-installation (whichi is a mid-term Fedora goal). So I would oppose this change (of course you're free to try your luck FPC and FESCO side) Also those fonts clearly belong do different font families as per Microsoft WWS specs so trying to join them will only result in pain mid-term. As Adobe's Thomas Phinney wrote WWS is essentially making font naming CSS compatible (you want them to work in browsers, right?) http://blogs.msdn.com/text/attachment/2249036.ashx http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/typotechnica2007/Font%20names.pdf Your main problem seems to be ghostscript requires a separate set of configuration files than the rest of the system. I suggest you spend your energy convinving the ghostscript people to use fontconfig like everyone else to find fonts. That will fix any future problem of this kind. -- 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
