Am Montag, den 06.01.2014, 19:22 -0800 schrieb Robert Ransom:
In that case, they should be kept in separate Debian source packages.
Indeed they are.
Make sure that you find the sources for those fonts. The tarball that
you linked to in the message that opened bug #733937 contains only the
Hi Robert,
thanks for your comments!
Am Freitag, den 03.01.2014, 14:03 -0800 schrieb Robert Ransom:
If the upstream source tarball contains both fonts, you'll have to
document both licenses in the copyright file anyway. Better to submit
one source package named fonts-google-crosextra.
On 1/6/14, Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com wrote:
There are two separate upstream source tarballs for Caladea
(crosextrafonts-20130214) and Carlito (crosextrafonts-carlito-20130920),
probably because both fonts have different licenses: Apache-2.0 for
Caladea and OFL-1.1 for Carlito.
In
If the upstream source tarball contains both fonts, you'll have to
document both licenses in the copyright file anyway. Better to submit
one source package named fonts-google-crosextra.
Once they're in the same source package, I doubt that there's any
reason to put the fonts into separate binary
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com
* Package name: fonts-google-crosextra-caladea
Version : 20130214
* URL : http://gsdview.appspot.com/chromeos-
localmirror/distfiles/crosextrafonts-20130214.tar.gz
* License : Apache
5 matches
Mail list logo
