Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes: > Quoting Vasudev Kamath (2015-10-12 10:27:35) >> Fabian Greffrath <fabian@debian.org> writes: >>> Am Samstag, den 10.10.2015, 20:29 +0530 schrieb Vasudev Kamath: >>>> Any one knows what really happened here?. I never followed >>>> development of Android fonts and now I'm confused by these changes. >>> >>> me neither. My only guess is that Droid fonts have been absorbed into >>> Noto fonts and Roboto fonts have been split out into a separate >>> independent project (as you already pointed out). >> >> I see. Now package contains only fallback DroidSans fonts. I wonder if >> its still meaningful to package it. > > It is meaningful to package fallback DroidSans fonts: It has reverse > dependencies! But it sure makes sense to check if current upstream is > bogus - i.e. if development has moved somewhere else. Hmm but logs in their repository talks a lot about merge in notofonts I didn't observe carefully though. If it makes sense to package only fallback fonts it can be done but we also need to check latest noto sources to see if it has Droid series merged then we probably need to provide some sort of movement from fonts-droid to newer upstream. We need to drop fonts-roboto also and there is no alternative as long as we get all build tools and fontforge in proper shape or else we need to provide prebuilt ttf/otf files but I guess that is no longer recommended right? > > >>> But this is really just based on hear-say, maybe other have a better >>> educated point of view. >> >> Lets hope some one has better idea. :-). > > Why wait for more solid proof? Original package was based on an > assumption, I believe, and now we have another. I'm just wondering what I should be doing now :-).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature