Le 27 août 2013 18:57, "Fabian Greffrath" <fabian@greffrath.com> a écrit :
>
> Am Dienstag, den 27.08.2013, 18:11 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
> > How about package name fonts-base35-urw? That indicating both a) the
> > aim of the bundle and b) the owner/maintainer of it.
>
> We actually have a font packaging policy:
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy
>
> So, the foundry has to come first in the package name. Artifex calls the
> fonts artifex_core35 on their download page, so I think I'd prefer
> "fonts-urw-core35", but "-base35" should be alright as well.
>
> > 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
>
> That's interesting! The former package contains fonts from the GNU
> ghostscript fork whereas the latter contains the fork with added cyrilic
> glyphs. Neither of them contains the pristine URW fonts or the ones
> shipped by ghostscript itself.
>
> > 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).
>
> Cool, that would be at least one copy less, only two more to go (though
> it will get hard to convince the LaTeX maintainers to replace their copy
> with the updated set from ghostscript).
Could we get bitmap output of font difference ?
> - Fabian
>