thanks both of you for your thoughts.
Since I really tried to persuade upstream to abandon .afm files (but failed doing so) I
think I will bundle them this time (until there is a better way of doing so).
Converting them unfortunately doesn't make any sense in this example, because they
need and want to have .afm in their gem.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicolas Mailhot" <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net>
To: "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora"
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 5:28:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Bundled text-based .afm font files
Le Mar 30 avril 2013 09:00, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 06:52:34AM -0400, Josef Stribny wrote:
> Hi all,
> I would like to package rubygem-prawn (PDF generator) [1, 2] for Fedora,
> but I am unsure about the font files that are bundled in the .gem file.
> There are many .afm font files which seem not to be considered as font
> files according to the guidelines  as Miroslav in the review 
> already pointed out. Is this true and is it then fine to package them
> normally as any other files? Or is there a special approach of
> bundling/packaging text-based font files like .afm?
Bundling would be the wrong connclusion to draw. nim should speak to this
but iirc, his position would be that the software should be converted to
ttf and otf fonts instead of afm and the fonts, if needsed, should be
converted from afm to otf.
Right, I don't care much about afm files, most of our apps can not use
them, you get all the hassles of standard fonts without the satisfaction
they'll be useful to a large range of users. So basically: 1. there is no
special place where afm files should be put on the filesystem and 2. the
legal problems are the same.
packaging mailing list