On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 11:31:44PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > You don't need udebs for that: you can do it straight from the regular > debs. debs usually contain unneeded files: dejavu and freefont, for example, contain boldoblique fonts which we don't need. > > I expanded the spellchecker as to compute the list of codepoints needed > > by every language (see [1], "codepoints" column); from what I've seen > > in the few days it's been running, the list of codepoints is quite > > stable. > > Hmm. It would very much surprise me if that wasn't the case. After all > we've been effectively in a string freeze for the release with only some > changes for partman-crypto happening. true, but po files contain more than 2000 lines of text which I think do cover 99% of the glyphs used by the average translation: I might be wrong by I doubt the set of glyphs will drastically change in the future because of the introduction of some new strings. > I'm still not convinced that stripping further than overlapping ranges and > making sure that only ranges needed for the script that a font is > supposed to support makes sense. This is where the big savings against > the current font use are. also if I'm still convinced about the things I said before, this is very true and it means we will not have to always keep and eye on the codepoints to make sure we're not missing some new glyphs. I think we already have all we need to do proper stripping: we just need working font files regards, Davide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature