On Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:24:25 PM Mountain Standard Time Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > 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.
Both of these tags flag against the WOFF2 fonts embedded in Redmine. https://udd.debian.org/lintian/? email1=&email2=&email3=&packages=redmine&ignpackages=&format=html<_error=on<_warning=on<_information=on&lintian_tag=#all > > 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. Perhaps I am incorrect about there being a consensus on this topic. Would you prefer if I asked on the Debian Fonts mailing list? > 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. I am not trying to frame you as being a stubborn outsider here. I am just trying to discuss my understanding of how these scenarios are typically handled in Debian. -- Soren Stoutner [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
