On 5/23/22 10:09 PM, Tim via users wrote:
On Mon, 2022-05-23 at 14:05 -0600, home user wrote:
are some fonts actually on my work station twice?
That can happen. Different things may provide those fonts.
[tim@rocky ~]$ locate NimbusMonoPS-Bold /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35/NimbusMonoPS-Bold.afm /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35/NimbusMonoPS-Bold.otf /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35/NimbusMonoPS-Bold.t1 /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35/NimbusMonoPS-BoldItalic.afm /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35/NimbusMonoPS-BoldItalic.otf /usr/share/fonts/urw-base35/NimbusMonoPS-BoldItalic.t1 /usr/share/ghostscript/Resource/Font/NimbusMonoPS-Bold /usr/share/ghostscript/Resource/Font/NimbusMonoPS-BoldItalic [... snip ...]
This has me believing that we need (changes to?) policies and standards. Those "different things" should not add a font unless... 1. the font is not already installed; .OR. 2. the font already on the system is a proper subset of the font that the "different thing" wants to install; .OR. 3. the font that the "different thing" wants to install is fixing glyphs documented as broken in the font already on the system. If #2 and/or #3 is the case, then the "different thing" should not replace the old version of the font with its version unless the sys.admin. clearly, specifically, directly approves.
Question: How do I propose/submit a policy addition or change? (presumably not by submitting a bug!)