Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-08-27 16:23:00) > [Resent to include the bug report.] > > Am Dienstag, den 27.08.2013, 10:08 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > > Yes, I noticed your emails about that at the Ghostscript project > > earlier this month, and also seem to recall you raising this IRL in > > New York. > > This must have been someone different. As much as I'd love to, I have > never been in New York. ;) Whoops - I had you mixed up with Reinhard Tartler. Sorry! > > I don't like how the Ghostscript project stuff lots of things into > > their project. Specifically about the URW++ fonts they lack proper > > licensing - also separately packaged in those zip files. I filed > > bug#720906 and emailed the Ghostscript project about that yesterday. > > That's indeed an issue, but I believe it can be sorted out rather > quickly. Yes, I expect so too. > > So generally I agree with your plan - just would prefer fonts-urw++ > > instead of fonts-ghostscript. > > Na, URW ist the foundry, not the font name. It is not a single font name but a bundle, mimicking Postscript "base 35" list. URW++ is the copyright holder and maintainer of the font bundle. Some of the fonts in the bundle includes "URW" in the name. Ghostscript is the main direct user of the font bundle. They pay URW++ for some of the development done by URW++, and also acts as proxy for distribution via its Free licensing. How about package name fonts-base35-urw? That indicating both a) the aim of the bundle and b) the owner/maintainer of it. > Fedora, for example, calls the package ghostscript-fonts. Both urw and ghostscript are used: http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=ghostscript-fonts http://rpmfind.net/linux/rpm2html/search.php?query=urw-fonts > I think we could call it fonts-urw++-ghostscript, but since there are > no other ghostscript fonts from other foundries available in Debian we > should better drop the foundry part and simply call it > fonts-ghostscript. I believe that's the most expected and plausible > package name. The font bundle relates to Postscript, not Ghostscript (see above). ...or should we make a copy of the package called fonts-poppler? > > I totally agree we should get rid of code copies. I have hesitated > > dropping them for now, as I am afraid some internal Ghostscript code > > might bypass the font path and rely on the specific location. > > > > Hm. I am now at the #ghostscript irc channel, so will simply ask... > > :-) > > According to my contact at Artifex, ghostscript relies on the font > file names for its internally used fonts, but even those can be mapped > to any other font file by means of a config file in fontmap.d. Yes, I got that confirmed upstream now too. I want to test a bit first, but will probably drop those fonts from Debian packaging of Ghostscript (also strip them from source, to sidestep bug#720906). - 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: signature