On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Maxime GAUDUIN <aluc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Marcel Korpel <marcel.li...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Maxime GAUDUIN <aluc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I mostly agree with you, but I would still keep the git package because >> I, >> > and I believe most people, don't want to pull 2Gb from the mercurial repo >> > and keep them lying around. This is painfully slow and, even though 2Gb >> are >> > nothing today, it is silly to waste space like this. The git repo >> contains >> > only the relevant TTF files and I think it is the better choice for whom >> > wants to download the Google web fonts. >> > >> > How do others feel about this? >> >> I totally agree with this. >> >> Regards, >> Marcel >> > > Okay, the only remaining webfonts packages in AUR are now > ttf-google-webfonts-git and ttf-google-webfonts-hg. > > Cheers. > -- > Maxime
I noticed that a new package named ttf-google-webfonts-tarball [1] was uploaded yesterday. The submitter of the package states, "This is for all those who use simple AUR helpers, e.g. cower, that need a version number to know that there's been an update and/or those who don't like the git/hg repos just hanging around on their systems (i.e. those who delete their AUR sources and packages)." Do the TUs feel that this package is necessary? It suffers from the same problem of frequent and endless maintenance that ttf-google-webfonts did that I mentioned in my first email in this thread. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-google-webfonts-tarball/ Jason
