[Bug 507261] Package building strategy is inconsistent between sazanami fonts and IPA fonts

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507261





--- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>  2009-06-22 02:27:32 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)

> Number 1 of "Package layout for fonts" in the URL mentioned in comment #3
> should be updated like the following:
> 
> Fonts released upstream in separate archives MUST be packaged in separate
> source packages (src.rpm), unless they belong to the same font family. If fonts
> released upstream are also released as a merged archive, this rule will not
> applied.

Due to how rpm dependency resolution work that would make impossible to
implement multi-criterium font search & auto-installation (whichi is a mid-term
Fedora goal). So I would oppose this change (of course you're free to try your
luck FPC and FESCO side)

Also those fonts clearly belong do different font families as per Microsoft WWS
specs so trying to join them will only result in pain mid-term. As Adobe's
Thomas Phinney wrote WWS is essentially making font naming CSS compatible (you
want them to work in browsers, right?)
http://blogs.msdn.com/text/attachment/2249036.ashx
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/typotechnica2007/Font%20names.pdf

Your main problem seems to be ghostscript requires a separate set of
configuration files than the rest of the system. I suggest you spend your
energy convinving the ghostscript people to use fontconfig like everyone else
to find fonts. That will fix any future problem of this kind.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.