Le 27 août 2013 18:57, "Fabian Greffrath" <fab...@greffrath.com> a écrit : > > Am Dienstag, den 27.08.2013, 18:11 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > > How about package name fonts-base35-urw? That indicating both a) the > > aim of the bundle and b) the owner/maintainer of it. > > We actually have a font packaging policy: > > https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy > > So, the foundry has to come first in the package name. Artifex calls the > fonts artifex_core35 on their download page, so I think I'd prefer > "fonts-urw-core35", but "-base35" should be alright as well. > > > Both urw and ghostscript are used: > > http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=ghostscript-fonts > > http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=urw-fonts > > That's interesting! The former package contains fonts from the GNU > ghostscript fork whereas the latter contains the fork with added cyrilic > glyphs. Neither of them contains the pristine URW fonts or the ones > shipped by ghostscript itself. > > > Yes, I got that confirmed upstream now too. I want to test a bit first, > > but will probably drop those fonts from Debian packaging of Ghostscript > > (also strip them from source, to sidestep bug#720906). > > Cool, that would be at least one copy less, only two more to go (though > it will get hard to convince the LaTeX maintainers to replace their copy > with the updated set from ghostscript).
Could we get bitmap output of font difference ? > - Fabian >
