> It's a bit ironic. I proposed in a MR to prepend fonts-noto-core to > that list, and you merged it. At the time I wasn't aware of the > significance of being listed first, and I suppose you weren't either. Yes, this sounds ironic and you are right, I wasn't aware of the implications of this change. :/ In my defense, I didn't have the fonts-noto-core package installed at that time (for obvious reasons). And albeit taking part in the discussion in #983291, I wasn't aware anymore of the fact that this was indeed the "core" package that bundled 168 font files. To me it looked like we were following upstream and replace one "core" font package with the other, but I admit I wasn't prepared that the latter one contained ~150 more font files than the former. Again, I have no problem with replacing DejaVU Sans/Serif/Mono with Noto Sans/Serif/Mono, my only problem is replacing the former with the latter plus 150 more fonts that I didn't ask for. ;) Cheers, - Fabian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part