On 2017-05-31 10:12, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
I agree that the WOFFs are not package documentation. They are needed by the package to make the html/css example files in the documentation directory display correctly. I was thinking of providing symlinks from the documentation directory into /usr/share/fonts/woff/packagename/... once the fontconfig issue is addressed and we can package WOFF.If you mean /usr/share/doc/$package then Debian Policy §12.3 forbids relying on any ressources placed there. See e.g. Debin Policy §10.7.3 for how instead to use symlinks in documentation area to the files places elsewhere.
Thank you for drawing my attention to those references. If I may explain the situation, then hopefully I can be instructed how to handle it correctly.
Upstream provides a .html file with some sample text. This .html file refers to a .css file (from the same folder). The .css file refers to a .woff (also in the same folder) file. If either the .woff or the .css are removed, the rendering of the text still works in the web browser, but with default fonts and styling. So the situation is not broken (that is, the remove of the files does not break anything) but degraded. The .html and .css can still be used as examples to people reading those files with something other than a web browser.
Where should I put these files?
Bobby de Vos