-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Wise wrote: > Package: lintian > Severity: wishlist > > Please check for *.ttf & *.otf fonts in packages not named ttf-* and > otf-*. These fonts should be generally be packaged separately and > depended on because they are usually useful outside the package that > embeds them (often they are decorative fonts, which are even more > useful). The check should ignore symlinks because some software just > loads a font filename instead of using fontconfig and symlinks are the > easiest way to make them work. > Attached mbox has two patches, one implementing font-in-non-font-package, and the second one implementing duplicate-font-file. I implemented the former check as wishlist and not pedantic because there is no reason to do it that way. My POV is that pedantic checks should be those for which one would normally not file a bug, not even as wishlist. In this case if I think a font could be re-used I would definitely file a report with severity wishlist. Maybe it is necessary to define what should be considered as pedantic, to avoid abuse and forget the reason why pedantic tags were implemented in first place. Cheers, - -- Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer www.debian.org - get.debian.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmD9twACgkQYy49rUbZzlovowCeO4dMNf1714qowJuUb7aVa5Fs 93wAn0b1euQZAVy9dfpjnTPeJ8yHYtFs =zG4k -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Attachment:
lintian_fonts.mbox
Description: application/mbox