On 5/24/22 1:28 PM, home user wrote:
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...
- 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!)
George's later post to this thread: "Unfortunately, widely used open source fonts often get multiple forks [etc.]" has me realizing that the possibility of multiple-branch forks in fonts could happen. So my 1 .OR. 2 .OR. 3 above is too simple. For this branch of this thread, I'm now out of good ideas.