On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 16:57 +0900, Atomo64 wrote in IRC:
Atomo64 pabs: is it really needed to compare the md5 of the font
files as shipped by the ttf- package and the duplicates? or can it
just work like the current embedded-* checks? (i.e. by checking the
file name)
The name picks up most duplicates but IIRC there are a few where the
font file has been renamed but not edited.
Atomo64 pabs: and is it common to embed just bitstream fonts? or
should I better write a script that looks for all font files provided
by ttf- packages and check for all of them?
Other fonts are also duplicated but vera/dejavu/freefont seem to be the
main ones.
Check out the pkg-fonts review for details:
http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/
The scripts for that are available here:
svn://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-fonts/people/yosch
Atomo64 pabs: and, if you think it should be better to compare via
md5sum? is there any file under pkg-fonts.alioth... with that
information so that the update script only grabs that one and not
Packages, Contents and the .deb files?
This file contains a list of fonts, their packages, filenames, MD5, SHA1
and a bit more info:
http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/debian-font-review.txt
Another idea would be to extract the font family name from the font and
match that against a few common ones. That would catch this file for
example:
http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/fnt-a3fd83916c8181623cee1e0d125b180f.html
Which seems to be an older version of this:
http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/fnt-7afbbe2980cde2d87d692600fe28869a.html
Another example of that:
http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/fnt-bbec80b179a6fa293ed2379b0340f162.html
http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/fnt-1c28f465d9f1379f07437d9df543d422.html
http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org/review/fnt-87a8908e7e5cd7d5603d90badd54cd66.html
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part