Andreas Bierfert wrote:
> We could of course aim for a dual-solution: Let
> wine-tahoma-fonts put the fonts in the wine font dir (mandatory for
> wine) and add a wine-tahoma-fonts-system package (names suggestions
> welcome) which also puts the fonts in the system wide font path
> (optional).
I believe this would be the best solution available.
The -system package can contain just a symlink to the wine-specific
font directory.
> If this would be a feasible solution I would still like some
> opinions
> if
> this should be done for both fonts or just for the reported bugs
> about
> the bold version.
I wonder, are all wine-provided fonts just (non-identical)
replacements for Microsoft fonts, or is this the case only for
WineTahoma?
If there are likely to be similar issues with other wine fonts, could
we just install all of them to wine-specific font directory and then
create a new package "wine-fonts-system" that would depend on
"wine-fonts" and installed symlinks into system-wide font directory
for all the wine fonts?
The result would be:
* If you install wine, all wine fonts are installed just for wine,
the rest of the system is not touched.
* If you install wine-fonts-system, all the wine fonts are available
system-wide.
Andreas, what do you think?
If you are not fond of this complete solution, can you implement at least the
wine-tahoma-fonts vs wine-tahoma-fonts-system separation, as you proposed?
Thanks.