Quoting Thomas Goirand (2015-09-08 09:28:15) > On 09/07/2015 08:42 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >>> If you wish to drop the generation of fonts-roboto from the >>> fonts-android package, then good. >> >> I think the better approach is to keep the fonts-roboto package, have >> your package exclude fonts, depend on the fonts-roboto package, and >> symlink font files from there as needed. > > I don't think so. The fonts-roboto package currently only provides > .tff files, which are useless for the web. The sources aren't the > same.
What are the sources, then? > Also, I don't think the FTP masters would like to have even more > binary packages and dependencies. If these can be avoided, it's best > for the Debian infrastructure, I heard. It is not best for Debian to track actual upstreams as our upstream rather than redistributors. >>> Do you think I should join the pkg-fonts group to maintain these >>> fonts under the group? >> >> We can always use more helping hands in the fonts team :-) >> >> But if your focus is on OpenStack then perhaps just coordinate with >> the font team on tuning the fonts-roboto package to provide what is >> needed for reuse with OpenStack - i.e. those web representations of >> the font (CSS/Sass/Less sounds like OpenStack-specific glue so >> probably makes best sense to package separately). > > They aren't OpenStack specific, it's just modern Javascript stuff, > which can be reused by any project. Great - then suggest maintainers of the existing package to adopt those tiny files too. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
