On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 02:23:23PM +0100, fabian@greffrath.com wrote:
Thing is, gsfonts is not mine to deal with. But that shouldn't stop others (yourself, Fabian?) from packaging URW++ fonts from its true source - and then change this bugreport into a request for removal of that (then obsolete) package.With "separate package" I meant another binary package (e.g. fonts-ghostscript-base) from the ghsotscript source, which could be introduced as soon as ghostscript upstream has returned to the original fonts. Whenever this packages is introduced, and provides and replaces gsfonts, the latter could be requested for removal. I don't see a reason to package the fonts from their "true source" if ghostscript ships the identical fonts in their release tarballs as well.
Ah. Thanks for clarifying.I disagree with that approach: I consider it a Best Practice(tm) to favor true source over indirection like redistribution bia Ghostscript.
- Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature