Bug#548508: VeraMono.ttf font should not be included in munin

2009-09-27 Thread Holger Levsen
Hi, On Sonntag, 27. September 2009, Tom Feiner wrote: The reason I opened this bug and not just fixed it is because I wanted a bug number to put in the patch... right! very good :) Thanks for the mentor mode explanations :) you're very welcome :) regards, Holger signature.asc

Bug#548508: VeraMono.ttf font should not be included in munin

2009-09-26 Thread Tom Feiner
Package: munin Version: 1.2.6-10~lenny1 Severity: wishlist munin package ships with VeraMono.ttf as part of it. This font is provided by the ttf-dejavu package (font name: DejaVuSansMono.ttf). Instead of bundling part of a different package in munin, it should depend on ttf-dejavu, and use the

Bug#548508: VeraMono.ttf font should not be included in munin

2009-09-26 Thread Tom Feiner
I guess we can now also remove the Vera font license from the copyright file as the munin binary package doesn't ship with it - however the munin original source tar.gz does contain it. Should the copyright file remain as is or can the Vera font license be removed? signature.asc Description:

Bug#548508: VeraMono.ttf font should not be included in munin

2009-09-26 Thread Tom Feiner
Committed the following patch to munin experimental: http://munin.projects.linpro.no/changeset/2490 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Bug#548508: VeraMono.ttf font should not be included in munin

2009-09-26 Thread Holger Levsen
Hi Tom, On Sonntag, 27. September 2009, Tom Feiner wrote: I guess we can now also remove the Vera font license from the copyright file as the munin binary package doesn't ship with it - however the munin original source tar.gz does contain it. Should the copyright file remain as is or can

Bug#548508: VeraMono.ttf font should not be included in munin

2009-09-26 Thread Tom Feiner
severity 548508 normal thanks Holger Levsen wrote: it should remain as it is, as we ship the fonts in the source package. Thanks, I'll leave it as it. P.S.: mentor modeThe correct severity for this bug would be normal, as Debian doesnt like code/content duplicates :) If code would be