On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 06:34:12PM +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote: > Quoting Francesca Ciceri (madamezou@zouish.org): > > > As a note: upstream doesn't use versioning of any kind, but as the first > > upstream version was named 1.0 for the Debian packaging, I named this > > one 2.0. Let me know if that's ok. > > > Not even in either the SFD files or the generated TTF files, i guess? I checked the SFD files and even for the files updated, the version is still 1.0. Not sure how to proceed here... :( > In such case, I tend to choose to use the upstream release dateif I > can find it....or at worst the date at which you picked up the file > from upstream's web site. > > So, something like 20140514-1 for instance. > > It's not perfect either but it has (IMHO) the advantage of clearly > saying "hey, upstream doesn't use any versioning system so I decided > to invent one" > Yes sounds sensible. The problem with upstream release date, in this case, is that we are talking here about a series of different fonts (Caliban, Caslon, Cupola, Monospace) released each one as a single sfd file (for each variant of the font) in different dates. See http://fontforge.org/sfds/ (upstream homepage). What I did was take all the .sfd and put them in a tar.gz. But they were released or updated individually, not all together. This is why I used the 2.0 notation. I guess we can pick the most recent date (which is 23 October 2003) or the date I picked the files. What does it seems better to you? Many thanks for your reply! Cheers, Francesca -- "Fuck it! Thank you! I love you all!" Streetlight Manifesto, Point/Counterpoint
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature