On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 16:57 +0900, Atomo64 wrote in IRC: > <Atomo64> pabs: is it really needed to compare the md5 of the font > files as shipped by the ttf- package and the duplicates? or can it > just work like the current embedded-* checks? (i.e. by checking the > file name) The name picks up most duplicates but IIRC there are a few where the font file has been renamed but not edited. > <Atomo64> pabs: and is it common to embed just bitstream fonts? or > should I better write a script that looks for all font files provided > by ttf- packages and check for all of them? Other fonts are also duplicated but vera/dejavu/freefont seem to be the main ones. Check out the pkg-fonts review for details: http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/ The scripts for that are available here: svn://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-fonts/people/yosch > <Atomo64> pabs: and, if you think it should be better to compare via > md5sum? is there any file under pkg-fonts.alioth... with that > information so that the update script only grabs that one and not > Packages, Contents and the .deb files? This file contains a list of fonts, their packages, filenames, MD5, SHA1 and a bit more info: http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/debian-font-review.txt Another idea would be to extract the font family name from the font and match that against a few common ones. That would catch this file for example: http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/fnt-a3fd83916c8181623cee1e0d125b180f.html Which seems to be an older version of this: http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/fnt-7afbbe2980cde2d87d692600fe28869a.html Another example of that: http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/fnt-bbec80b179a6fa293ed2379b0340f162.html http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/fnt-1c28f465d9f1379f07437d9df543d422.html http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/fnt-87a8908e7e5cd7d5603d90badd54cd66.html -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part