Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Should we comaintain fontforge?

To: Font packages development list <pkg-fonts-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Should we comaintain fontforge?
From: Kęstutis Biliūnas <kebil@kaunas.init.lt>
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2006 13:30:28 +0300
Message-id: <[🔎] 1144578628.6360.20.camel@kb-home.lt>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 1143987589.6584.35.camel@kb-home.lt>
References: <20060322103336.GA10583@diwi.org> <200603251242.12784.avbidder@fortytwo.ch> <20060326054729.GV25713@djedefre.onera> <200603271950.17136.avbidder@fortytwo.ch> <20060327180147.GA26886@djedefre.onera> <[🔎] 1143987589.6584.35.camel@kb-home.lt>

Hi,

I have prepared the new version of the fontforge-0.0.20060406-1 package.

Closes: 316892 328217 333548 336056 342180 344124 357867 361107 361289

The package, can be found on my repository at
http://kebil.ghost.lt/debian/pool/fontforge/

Maybe somebody can to test this package.

Best regards,
-- 
Kęstutis Biliūnas <kebil@kaunas.init.lt>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: =?iso-8859-2?Q?=A9i?= =?iso-8859-2?Q?_lai=B9ko?= dalis yra =?iso-8859-2?Q?pasira=B9yta?= skaitmeniniu =?iso-8859-4?Q?b=FEdu?=

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Should we comaintain fontforge?
  - From: Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>

References:
- Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Should we comaintain fontforge?
  - From: Kęstutis Biliūnas <kebil@kaunas.init.lt>

Prev by Date: [Pkg-fonts-devel] RFS: libuninameslist -- a library of Unicode annotation data
Next by Date: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Should we comaintain fontforge?
Previous by thread: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Should we comaintain fontforge?
Next by thread: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Should we comaintain fontforge?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread