Hi Vasudev, thanks for the review :) On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:54:15PM +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Francesca Ciceri <madamezou@zouish.org> wrote: > > Also, I'm not sure if it's ok to ask for review/sponsorship of the > > package directly here or if it's better go throught mentors, let me > > know! > > You can ask for review and sponsor here on pkg-fonts, and here is a > quick review after checking various files under debian, I think its > better to move debian/copyright file to new format [1] other than that > Standards-Version which you already mentioned that you will update. While I was changing the debian/copyright file I noticed a couple of things: - upstream now provides the sources for this font see [1] - he added OFL as license, so the fonts are apparently dual-licensed now (BSD+OFL) - he doesn't really use a version number It would make sense to probably include the sources in the package, and generate the ttf via fontforge. I've looked a bit at how this is done in other packages (fonts-dejavu mainly) and I think I can experiment a bit with this kind of change. I'll update the license situation, so that now we have: source → OFL/BSD, debian/* files GPL. Does that makes sense for fonts that are not updated by upstream since ages (2004 the more recent update, but they all are more or less 2002-2003 according to upstream homepage)? I don't use them, and I started to work on this just to help with the migration. I feel like the stray dog followed me home :). But, I'm using this package to learn, and it's great on that point of view, I'm just not sure on a team-wide point of view how much this work makes sense. Cheers, Francesca [1] http://fontforge.org/sfds/ > > [1] https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/ > -- <ana> the real problem is when you turn 32 and you need an extra bit
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature