Re: Policy question: web fonts in extra package?

[Markus Wanner <markus@bluegap.ch>]

Fabian,

thank you for your feedback.

On 05/22/2018 11:48 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> I am all for keeping packaging as easy as possible (and as complex as
> necessary, whatever that means). If a user wants to install the Junction
> fonts, she probably only wants to install the fonts-junction package
> (that'd be the most logical reaction) and expects this package to provide
> all the necessary fonts with that name.

I agree.

However, following up the cause for the "fonts-ebgaramond-extra"
package, I found the following issue:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=722054

I don't quite understand why WOFF is not in the main package. Nor why
the TTFs are included.

@Scott: do you remember any specific reason for that split between
fonts-ebgaramond and fonts-ebgaramond-extra?

> But please make sure to "hide" the WOFF fonts in a directory out of
> fontconfig's reach, so packages that rely on fontconfig but cannot handle
> the WOFF format well (yet) don't choke on it. Please see fonts-hack for an
> example.

That's a good point. I'll read up on it.

> Regarding TTF, I'd rather ask upstream if they prefer TTF over OTF fonts.
> Otherwise, I don't see a reason to install TTF fonts at all if OTF fonts
> are available.

I think TTF is provided as a convenience alongside the OTF variant. I'll
keep the TTFs out of the binary package for fonts-junction.

Are there still issues with TTFs being installed alongside an OTF
variant (as #722054 above seems to indicate)? If so,
fonts-ebgaramond-extra should probably get rid of the TTFs as well.

Kind Regards

Markus