[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#91257: re-proposing this

On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 12:46:04AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I am re-proposing this.  The only change is the following two paragraphs:
>             <item>
>                 Fonts of any type supported by the X Window System must be
>                 be in a separate binary package from any executables,
>                 libraries, or documentation (except that specific to the
>                 fonts shipped, such as their license information).  If one
>                 or more of the fonts so packaged are necessary for proper
>                 operation of the package with which they are associated the
>                 font package may be Recommended; if the fonts merely
>                 provide an enhancement, a Suggests relationship may be
>                 used.  Packages must not Depend on font packages.
>                 <footnote>
>                         This is because the X server may retrieve fonts
>                         from the local filesystem or over the network from
>                         an X font server; the Debian package system is
>                         empowered to deal only with the local filesystem.
>                 </footnote>
>             </item>

Seconded, with the proviso that I reserve the right to later be
disagreeable about some of the "musts"...

(Later being after we work out a satisfactory way of specifying what "must"
is meant to specify. Julian, I'd really appreciate it if you could propose
something along those lines. But not in this thread...)


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpWrBHjraEqh.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: