defoma needs work, probably, but is unlikely to go away
Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Friday 05 September 2008 22:00, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>>> Quite frankly, if it is just creating new packages, it's a better idea
>>> to fix some RC bugs now and drop defoma as soon as lenny is out the door.
>> If that is agreed view on defoma, there is no need to reactivate this
> disclaimer: I dont know much more about defoma then that I think its _the_
> debian tool for dealing with fonts...
> And so, I wonder if this is really the agreed view on defoma?!
> And at the very least we should update this manual for lenny and document how
> one should create truetype fonts in lenny, if the described way doesnt work
Apologies for the confusion. A closer look at the situation shows that
defoma should receive major work and someone should adopt it, but
neither the Debian fonts team nor anyone else adopted it so far.
Naturally, if someone chooses to maintain defoma and needs the
libft-perl back bad enough to fix its bugs and pick it up, it can be
reintroduced. That said, I seem to recall (and the defoma RFA bug
supports it to some extend) that defoma really needs some work that
might change it fairly drastically.
Again, sorry for misrepresenting the state of defoma, if it wakes
someone up, the better. :)
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/