Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-05-26 20:00:58) > It seems we have been suffering from a lack of communication, which isn’t my > intention. Let me try to describe the problem from the beginning in a way > that I hope will be more helpful. > > I believe it is the general consensus in Debian that fonts should only be > packaged by font packages and that these fonts should be installed inside > /usr/share/fonts/. > > This general consensus is expressed in the following two lintian tags: > > https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/font-in-non-font-package > https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/font-outside-font-dir
The above lintian tags are both about system fonts, not recompressions of fonts targeted web browsers. > Upstream programs are often packaged with embedded fonts, particularly web > application. Sometimes these have slipped into the Debian packaging instead > of properly being remove and simlinked to the appropriate Debian font > package. > Debian contains a number of such packages with inappropriate embedded fonts, > some of which have existed in the archive for quite a long time. Redmine is > such a package. Since taking over maintenance of the redmine package, I am > attempting to clean up these packaging bugs. > > I do not think that all font packages need to ship .WOFF2 variants. I > maintain the fonts-adobe-sourcesans3 package, wich doesn’t ship .WOFF2 fonts > because there aren’t currently any package in Debian that would consume them. > > However, if a package were to start needed them, and a bug was filed against > fonts-adobe-sourcesans3 request that I ship the .WOFF2 fonts, I would be > happy > to do so. > > Looking at how this is handled by other font packages, sometimes they ship > the > .WOFF2 fonts in a separate binary package (sometimes named -web). In other > instances they ship them in the same binary package as the other fonts. > Either seems appropriate depending on the size of the font packages and the > maintainer’s preference. > > My request is that you ship these fonts as part of the fonts-noto source > package, either in one of the existing binary packages or in a new binary > package. I genuinely do not understand why there would be any opposition to > doing so. I am unaware of any consensus in Debian on how to handle recompression of fonts for targeting web browsers. The optimal likely involves subsetting to only include glyphs relevant for the scope of the web application. You asked for possibilities, I provided you are list of possibilities which you then ignored, and insist on the one approach that you try to frame as already common in Debian. I fail to recognize that to be the established common approach, and I dislike you framing me as being the weird stubborn outsider here. - 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
