TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages]

[Nicolas Mailhot]

On Sun, 2008-07-27 at 14:20 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:

> In actual fact, the reason that I had made little headway is that when
> you start to look at the problem carefully you start to realize that
> it's a bit of a mistake for Fedora to be repackaging the texlive
> distribution rather than packaging the individual upstream projects.

I totally agree with this assessment

> Anyway, here's some things I see as a bit of a priority:
> 
> 1) Form a TeX SIG.
> 2) Get some TeX packaging guidelines in place
> 3) Work with the fonts SIG to resolve the fonts mess.

As long as what you do is text and font-related, you're welcome to work
within the Fonts SIG IMHO. Because in case you have noticed, setting up
a SIG and making it visible enough to influence upstreams is a lot of
work.

[OT We're listened to because we have a internet wiki presence so please
everyone do take care to fill and update the wiki pages associated to
your font packages. I know it's no fun stuff but it helps a lot.]

Of course that shouldn't stop you for setting a separate SIG if you feel
like it and have the necessary manpower. SIGs are fun.

> Of course, until we actually try implementing such an approach, it'll
> not become clear what the complications are.

That's usually the case. It's an incrementatal
ooops-brownpaper-bag-decision process. :p

> I have to admit, I'm not
> massively familiar with the font packaging process in Fedora, but have
> been reading through the wiki pages and looking at packages this
> weekend - in fact I hadn't really wanted to raise a proposal until I
> had a better and more complete understanding of the problem space, but
> Nicholas' email has spurred me on a bit.
> 
> What do folks think? And I guess, more importantly, who's up for some work? :)

I obviously am already taken by other stuff, and I'll be away for a
month starting tomorrow, but I can offer the Fonts SIG infrastructure. I
do think TUG has the potential to be a big font provider, and there's a
lot of crossover between the Fonts SIG and what you want to do, so that
would be good for everyone.

Of course I don't speak for everyone in the SIG, so, people, if you
don't want TEX messages to crowd the list, please speak up now.

Best regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fonts/attachments/20080727/bf027d03/attachment.bin