> So we have a conflict of goals here. The good news is that a user who > speaks some latin language, and who thinks it's important to be able > to easily select font directly in various applications, can do: > > apt purge fonts-noto-core If this is deemed "okayish", then why bother about a default font installation at all? Why not install all the cruft and let the user uninstall what they don't need? Its that easy. </sarcasm> Seriously, what I think should be installed on *every* system is a complete set of serif/sans/mono latin fonts. And then additional fonts should get pulled in by task-*-desktop packages based on the user's selected language during D-I. This is how it was in "fonts-dejavu-core" times. Instead, if you install fonts-noto-core on every system (at least as it is now) you don't actually help the e.g. Devanagari people by installing a Tamil font on their systems and vice versa (just to pick some examples). But in the end, everybody ends up with literally hundreds of fonts that they can read as much or less as the "tofu" glyphs that they are meant to replace. > Some people have complained.[3] But overall I think that most users > like the idea with a worldwide font coverage. That may be the Noto project's goal, but not mine. Is it Debian's goal at all? Note that I am not talking about font *availability* here, but worldwide coverage in the default install. > Perhaps the primary suggestion, but not the expected future: I > maintain > the package fonts-noto, and what you refer to is the opinion of > Fabian, > who disagrees with my views on how to maintain that package. No, that's the one thing that the bug reporter in #983291 requested from you. Please read it again. Also, maybe it would make sense to populate the fonts-noto-core package by an actual selection based on alternatives and quality. The summary provided here may provide a hint: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DefaultToNotoFonts Cheers, - Fabian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part