Quoting Bastien ROUCARIES (2013-08-28 07:29:32) > Le 27 août 2013 18:57, "Fabian Greffrath" <[1]fabian@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: >> >> [2]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 ? I see no need for that, but if interested in investigating further, here are the the relevant sources I am aware of: a1) URW++ 1.05~1999+AFPL: decent base 35 match, hardcoded AFPL. a2) URW++ 1.05~1999+GPL: decent base 35 match, hardcoded GPL. b) frob 1.07pre22: decent base 35 match, covers cyrillic, GPL. c) frob 1.07pre44: decent base 35 match, covers cyrillic, GPL. c) frob 1.06~2007: decent base 35 match, covers cyrillic, GPL. d) URW++ 1.05~2002: decent base 35 match, maybe AFPL/GPL/LPPL. e) URW++ 1.10~2006: best base 35 match, maybe GPL. f) GUS TeX Gyre: unknown base 35 match, covers eastern european, GFL. <http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/> has a1), a2) and b). <http://svn.ghostscript.com/ghostscript/tags/> has c). <http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/fonts/> has d) and e). <http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre> has f). For Postscript RIPs (Ghostscript and Poppler), base 35 match and GPL compatibility is important. I trust the Ghostscript project in picking e) as the best option for that, and we should package their pick in Debian (but IMO not branded as "Ghostscript pick", but "URW++ work"!). For other uses in Debian where larger coverage in relevant, c) is maybe relevant - but since the aim then is a different one from the original of the bundle, I find it confusing to include with our distribution multiple fonts by same names but of varying qualities. So I recommend that an eventual investigation of visual qualities and coverage include TeX Gyre, to hopefully conclude that that one is the superior choice. For usees with TeX, especially if we want to try convince upstream to align with us, we need to take into account the licensing. TeXLive is licensed as LPPL, and whereas the initially freed URW++ work was later licensed also as LPPL, the newer works is maybe not. I say "maybe", because currently the works proxy-released by Ghostscript project lack licensing altogether. I brought that up with an Artifex employee yesterday, and they will bring in up at their next meeting in two weeks. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature