Hi Jonas,
Am 18.02.2011 11:33, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
There is currently a discussion on gs-devel to merge the urwcyr
1.0.7pre44 fonts that Debian ships in their gsfonts package into the
fonts that ghostscript ships:
http://ghostscript.com/pipermail/gs-devel/2011-February/008891.html
agree
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:48 PM, fab...@greffrath.com wrote:
Hi Jonas,
Am 18.02.2011 11:33, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
There is currently a discussion on gs-devel to merge the urwcyr
1.0.7pre44 fonts that Debian ships in their gsfonts package into the
fonts that ghostscript ships:
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:48:49PM +0100, fab...@greffrath.com wrote:
Am 18.02.2011 11:33, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
There is currently a discussion on gs-devel to merge the urwcyr
1.0.7pre44 fonts that Debian ships in their gsfonts package into the
fonts that ghostscript ships:
Thing is, gsfonts is not mine to deal with. But that shouldn't stop
others (yourself, Fabian?) from packaging URW++ fonts from its true
source - and then change this bugreport into a request for removal of
that (then obsolete) package.
With separate package I meant another binary package
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 02:23:23PM +0100, fab...@greffrath.com wrote:
Thing is, gsfonts is not mine to deal with. But that shouldn't stop
others (yourself, Fabian?) from packaging URW++ fonts from its true
source - and then change this bugreport into a request for removal of
that (then
I disagree with that approach: I consider it a Best Practice(tm) to
favor true source over indirection like redistribution bia Ghostscript.
Jonas, AFAICT URW++ made these fonts available by handing them over to the
ghostscript project, i.e. there has never been a true source tarball
released by
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 04:51:50PM +0100, fab...@greffrath.com wrote:
I disagree with that approach: I consider it a Best Practice(tm) to
favor true source over indirection like redistribution bia
Ghostscript.
Jonas, AFAICT URW++ made these fonts available by handing them over to
the
Seems to me you just provided its most true source, then :-)
The most true source will be the ghostscript release tarball as soon as
they reverted back to the original fonts. Why should we package the fonts
from a separate release tarball from 200x when they are already part of
the recent
Am Freitag, den 18.02.2011, 12:51 +0100 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
That's what I am talking about: The Ghostscript project includes all
needed resources as part of a single tarball instead of as isolated
chunks.
Indeed, I understood your initial response the other way round. ;)
Debian has a
Package: libgs9-common
Version: 9.01~dfsg-1
Severity: normal
Hi Jonas,
is there a reason why ghostscript ships its own fonts in
/usr/share/ghostscript/9.01/Resource/Font in the libgs9-common package but also
depends on the gsfonts package? The latter contains modified variants of the
exact same
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:07:32AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
is there a reason why ghostscript ships its own fonts in
/usr/share/ghostscript/9.01/Resource/Font in the libgs9-common package
but also depends on the gsfonts package? The latter contains modified
variants of the exact same
Am 18.02.2011 11:33, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
There are multiple reasons, e.g. historical packaging complications,
historical packaging cleanup complications, and the fact that upstream
treat external codebases as local sources, the latter causing
additional burden of our side of analysing and
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:43:57AM +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Am 18.02.2011 11:33, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
There are multiple reasons, e.g. historical packaging complications,
historical packaging cleanup complications, and the fact that upstream
treat external codebases as local
13 matches
Mail list logo
