On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 09:33:53PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > could you please have a look?
> done so, I think. ;)
> Thanks!
:) thank *you*!
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi Holger,
Am Donnerstag, den 18.08.2016, 14:47 + schrieb Holger Levsen:
> > > unfortunatly I get merge conflicts when I try merging the experimental
> git branch into master, and I really lack the time atm to resolve those…
> > could you
Hi Fabian,
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:30:10PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Holger, please upload fonts-liberation 2.x to unstable as soon as you like.
unfortunatly I get merge conflicts when I try merging the experimental
git branch into master, and I really lack the time atm to resolve
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:30:10PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Sounds like both projects (i.e. croscore and liberation 2.x) play their
> role and it makes sense to keep both for the time being (but drop
> liberation 1.x). We can still decide at a later point if it is wise to
> drop one of
> Even i am not aware of any recent releases of Croscore. Does anyone?
They don't seem to do classic releases but instead "update" the font files
in the noto-fonts repo on Github.
- Fabian
> If "Liberation 2.* are equivalent to Croscore" as Pravin summarized,
> then it follows that only one of them is properly developed, the other
> is only superficially mangling the other. Or am I missing something?
Though they were identical at some point in time, they are not necessarily
Quoting Pravin Satpute (2016-08-16 13:28:12)
> Liberation 2.* are equivalent to Croscore. Only difference is, in
> Liberation fonts we are doing is more opensource way, i.e. maintaining
> its source file and generating it with our tools while Croscore is
> just ttf and mostly that is provided
On Wednesday 17 August 2016 03:57 PM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>> has value for fonts. Just want to emphasize that properly _developed_
>> fonts with proper sources available has _greater_ value than equally
>> shaped commercially promoted but over-the-fence-developed fonts.
> I don't agree as
> Differences are as above, so feel free to take decision :)
Sounds like both projects (i.e. croscore and liberation 2.x) play their
role and it makes sense to keep both for the time being (but drop
liberation 1.x). We can still decide at a later point if it is wise to
drop one of them and
> has value for fonts. Just want to emphasize that properly _developed_
> fonts with proper sources available has _greater_ value than equally
> shaped commercially promoted but over-the-fence-developed fonts.
I don't agree as generally as you state it. Croscore's upstream is Google
and if they
On the question of upgrading to 2.x or staying with 1,x:
Quoting Pravin Satpute (2016-08-16 13:28:12)
> On Tuesday 16 August 2016 04:26 PM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>>> any reasons not to upload 2.00.1-2 to unstable? #699322 mentions the
>>> missing Sans Narrow font, but I think it's still a
On Tuesday 16 August 2016 04:26 PM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Dear Holger and Pravin,
>
>> any reasons not to upload 2.00.1-2 to unstable? #699322 mentions the
>> missing Sans Narrow font, but I think it's still a worthwhile
>> improvement as it is…
> I agree that it might make sense to finally
Dear Holger and Pravin,
> any reasons not to upload 2.00.1-2 to unstable? #699322 mentions the
> missing Sans Narrow font, but I think it's still a worthwhile
> improvement as it isâ¦
I agree that it might make sense to finally upload fonts-liberation 2.00.1
to unstable. The loss of the Sans
control: retitle -1 fonts-liberation: upload 2.00.1-2 to unstable
Hi,
any reasons not to upload 2.00.1-2 to unstable? #699322 mentions the
missing Sans Narrow font, but I think it's still a worthwhile
improvement as it is…
Shall/may I upload to sid?
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
What is the status of this new version? Looks like it was added to
experimental a few years ago but has been subsequently removed.
15 matches
Mail list logo
