在 2017年5月4日星期四 CST 上午8:09:13，Paul Wise 写道： > On Thu, 4 May 2017 00:38:24 +0200 Adam Borowski wrote: > > I'm not entirely sure .otf are the real sources, despite the upstream > > providing only otf. For now, let's assume they are, unless there's > > evidence to the contrary (not sure what the README means). > > The README is pretty clear that the fonts are compile to OpenType using > AFDKO from FontForge and or Inkscape source. AFDKO is not in Debian > main so this font should go to contrib. In addition, no FontForge > source format or SVG files were released and the font is under the > GPL so I don't think we can distribute this at all. Please ask the > ftp-masters to reject this package from NEW. In the email from upstream, he seems unwilling to solve this so-called "problem" in his POV. OTF fonts and so-called "source" (CID postscript fonts) only differs on font encapsulation, which means they can convert to each other without losing information. That is different from typical compilation process. AFDKO is only a convert tool, not a compiler. Upstream said he is releasing .otf fonts under GPL and that should not bother with AFDKO or other tools, which is used in font development. As a result, upstream (and I) are in doubt whether this would cause rejection in Debian. There are lots of fonts in Debian with only .ttf or .otf fonts as source. Is there a convincing policy that regulates sources of fonts in Debian? (e.g. what is "source" and what is "binary"?) P.S. AFDKO packaging is being worked on packaging. (http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-fonts/afdko.git) -- Boyuan Yang
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.