On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 05:36:27PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
A BDF file can contain any number of properties describing the font
in the header, for example CAP_HEIGHT and X_HEIGHT. Maybe there's
no harm in losing this information through format conversion. I
This is a precise example of
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 01:19:47AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
The only advantage is in preserving all information if (and only if)
the original font is in BDF format. It seemed harmless to me if the
That's not an advantage per se. Either you know that some of that
information are useful for the
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 01:19:47AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
The only advantage is in preserving all information if (and only if)
the original font is in BDF format. It seemed harmless to me if the
That's not an
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:14:03PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
I fail to see the difference between a BDF-to-PCF converter and a C compiler
that will discard comments from the C source files. Yet we do not generally
BDF font files have not been allowed in Debian packages for a while,
as per Debian policy. I emailed Russ Allbery last year about the
possibility of allowing BDF fonts back into Debian for reasons that
follow. He was willing to entertain the idea. I waited for the lenny
release before bringing
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:07:56AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
However, the original BDF version can contain ASCII comments that are
not preserved in the PCF version. These comments often contain
information such as author, copyright, and licensing information.
With the BDF versions discarded,
On Wed, 2009-03-11 at 12:15 +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:07:56AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
However, the original BDF version can contain ASCII comments that are
not preserved in the PCF version. These comments often contain
information such as author, copyright,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:07:56AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
BDF font files have not been allowed in Debian packages for a while,
as per Debian policy. I emailed Russ Allbery last year about the
possibility of allowing BDF fonts back into Debian for reasons that
follow. He was willing to
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:14:03PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
I fail to see the difference between a BDF-to-PCF converter and a C compiler
that will discard comments from the C source files. Yet we do not generally
ship C source code in binary packages.
This is not the right analogy. A C
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
This is not the right analogy. A C source file by itself cannot be run
without having been compiled while, AFAICT from the given description,
a BDF source file can be. Make an analogy with Perl source file, it
will work better: they do have copyright notices and
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 09:26:07AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
A question I have and that hasn't been addressed by the original
request is: what is the advantage to have BDF files in binary
packages? Comments and copyright notices don't look like a real
advantage to me.
Copyright notices
Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au writes:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
This is not the right analogy. A C source file by itself cannot be
run without having been compiled while, AFAICT from the given
description, a BDF source file can be. Make an analogy with Perl
source file, it
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:31:48AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
Brian May br...@microcomaustralia.com.au writes:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
This is not the right analogy. A C source file by itself cannot be
run without having been compiled while, AFAICT from the given
description, a BDF
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 01:07:56AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
In addition, PCF format fonts are gzipped on Debian systems as per
Debian Policy. If BDF fonts are also gzipped, there is little
difference in size between the two formats so the advantage of the
binary PCF format over the ASCII BDF
14 matches
Mail list logo
