Quoting Scott Kitterman (2023-09-15 07:49:52) > > > On September 15, 2023 5:37:23 AM UTC, Jonas Smedegaard <d...@jones.dk> wrote: > >Scott Kitterman wrote: > >>> Please change the dependency to the appropriate package instead. > >>> Thank you. > >> Which one is that? I can't find any indication in the package what > >> replaced it. > > > >The binary package fonts-noto-unhinted is currently empty because it > >contained only fonts lacking hinting, and currently all fonts provided > >from same source package are available with hinting. > > > >So I would turn the question around: Do xml2rfc require fonts without > >hinting, or does it require certain specific fonts which formerly > >existed only without hinting? > > Unhinted is what the upstream documentation specifies: > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/pkg-xml2rfc/-/blob/debian/sid/README.md
Hmm, it might be that upstream only really specifies the need for "the full Noto Font and Roboto Mono", and is simply being helpful in how to achieve that. Especially since historically the unhinted Noto fonts had a wider coverage than the hinted ones, but this has since caught up. Regardless, the Debian *never* offered the full subset of unhinted Noto fonts, only those unavailable as hinted fonts. If there really is a need for Debian to distribute yet another gigabyte of Noto fonts crippled to not contain hinting (which is something only commonly needed in contrained places like on some smartphones, and commonly Debian aims for "most bloated" rather than optimizing for embedded environments) then please file a bugreport against src:fonts-noto to move further discussion to a wider audience. Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
