Bug#846793: (no subject)

2018-09-24 Thread Anthony Fok
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 18:55:44 -0400 Hugo Lefeuvre wrote: > Hi Frédéric, > > > What's the status? I don't see anything in > > https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-stix/filelist > > Sorry for the late answer. > > Looks like it is still in the NEW queue[0], FTP Masters are > busy currently... thi

Bug#846793: (no subject)

2018-06-29 Thread Hugo Lefeuvre
Hi Frédéric, > What's the status? I don't see anything in > https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-stix/filelist Sorry for the late answer. Looks like it is still in the NEW queue[0], FTP Masters are busy currently... this is not in my hands anymore. :( Regards, Hugo [0] https://ftp-master

Bug#846793: (no subject)

2018-06-25 Thread Frédéric WANG
On 04/06/2018 03:20, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote: > Done. If everything goes well you should be able to find STIX Two in > unstable within the next few days. > > Cheers, > Hugo Hi Hugo, What's the status? I don't see anything in https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-stix/filelist -- Frédéric Wang

Bug#846793: (no subject)

2018-06-04 Thread Frédéric WANG
On 04/06/2018 03:20, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote: >>> I'm going to take care of it in the next days. Don't hesitate to ping me >>> next week if the package isn't in NEW. >> Great, thank you for taking care of it. > Done. If everything goes well you should be able to find STIX Two in > unstable within the n

Bug#846793: (no subject)

2018-06-03 Thread Hugo Lefeuvre
> > I'm going to take care of it in the next days. Don't hesitate to ping me > > next week if the package isn't in NEW. > > Great, thank you for taking care of it. Done. If everything goes well you should be able to find STIX Two in unstable within the next few days. Cheers, Hugo --

Bug#846793: (no subject)

2018-05-28 Thread Frédéric WANG
On 29/05/2018 02:01, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote: > Thanks for the patch ! I've had a look, and while it's perfectly ok to > do it that way, I'd rather opt for the same source package as STIX 1 > with multiple upstream tarballs (so, we'd build both STIX 1 and STIX 2 > in the same source package). > > I'm g

Bug#846793: (no subject)

2018-05-28 Thread Hugo Lefeuvre
Hi Frédéric, > > If anybody has time to package STIX 2, feel free to submit your update/ > > NEW package, I'll be glad to upload it. > > @Hugo: Have you been able to check the patch? Thanks for the patch ! I've had a look, and while it's perfectly ok to do it that way, I'd rather opt for the sam

Bug#846793: (no subject)

2018-05-27 Thread Frédéric WANG
> If anybody has time to package STIX 2, feel free to submit your update/ > NEW package, I'll be glad to upload it. @Hugo: Have you been able to check the patch? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#846793: (no subject)

2017-02-08 Thread Hugo Lefeuvre
Hi Frédéric, > Any update on this? I'd like to be a able to take time for this task, but unfortunately I am extremely busy currently. If anybody has time to package STIX 2, feel free to submit your update/ NEW package, I'll be glad to upload it. I'll keep you informed. Cheers, Hugo --

Bug#846793: (no subject)

2017-01-30 Thread Frédéric WANG
Hi Hugo, Any update on this? -- Frédéric Wang signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#846793: (no subject)

2016-12-06 Thread Frédéric WANG
Hi Hugo, Yes, given their reply on sourceforge creating a separate package seems the way to go... One remark: fonts-stix still contains the obsolete files 1.0 files in opentype/stix and the 1.1 files in opentype/stix-word See https://packages.debian.org/jessie/all/fonts-stix/filelist So another