Could/should the ghostscript binary package split the fonts out into a separate binary package, named "gsfonts"? There appear to be a number of packages that depend on gsfonts directly, so I think it makes sense to keep the binary name around. I suppose this would imply some compatibility layer, since the font filenames and install location have changed.
There's also defoma integration to be considered, since 'gsfonts' currently provides defoma support. Otherwise, I don't see anything special in the gsfonts packaging; so if these fonts are the upstream replacement for gsfonts, I think we can make the switch, yes. -- ghostscript has a 300% size increase https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/255485 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
