> 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 (e.g. fonts-ghostscript-base) from the ghsotscript source, which could be introduced as soon as ghostscript upstream has returned to the original fonts. Whenever this packages is introduced, and provides and replaces gsfonts, the latter could be requested for removal. I don't see a reason to package the fonts from their "true source" if ghostscript ships the identical fonts in their release tarballs as well. - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-printing-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/a6a8db6d7e82379f36266b673550a12d.squir...@webmail.greffrath.com
