Hi Norbert et al.,
Am Dienstag, den 10.09.2013, 10:04 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
My suggestion is:
* upload fonts-urw-base35 without any gsfonts relations whatsoever.
Done now it GIT, could you please have a look at it?
Thank you!
- Fabian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Mi, 11 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Done now it GIT, could you please have a look at it?
Sure: Can I ask you one more change ... sorry for being picky.
For now, I would suggest to remove the epoch, as it is not necessary
anymore.
What do you think?
Norbert
Am Donnerstag, den 12.09.2013, 10:14 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
For now, I would suggest to remove the epoch, as it is not necessary
anymore.
Alright, it is removed in GIT.
Thanks!
- Fabian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
Hi Norbert,
Am Dienstag, den 10.09.2013, 10:04 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
You are a bit overdoing. First, did you consider the fact that
the fonts currently in gsfonts provide cyrillic glyphs.
Now removing them, what are the consequences?
Are you aware, have you planned for that? Have
Am Montag, den 09.09.2013, 13:34 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
Nothing. There is no way you can easily take over a package.
So they can block development by sheer ignorance?
You *can* upload fonts-urw-base35 and do everything there is, *without*
sjhipping temporary gsfonts packages.
If I
Hi Fabian,
On Mo, 09 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
So they can block development by sheer ignorance?
You are a bit overdoing. First, did you consider the fact that
the fonts currently in gsfonts provide cyrillic glyphs.
Now removing them, what are the consequences?
Are you aware, have you
On So, 08 Sep 2013, Norbert Preining wrote:
Maybe commited, but not yet pushed. Please do so.
Upps, probably - it is at the university now, cannot do anything.
Will push it tomorrow.
Pushed now.
As long as the maintainers of gsfonts do not agree, there is no chance
I will upload it.
See
Am Montag, den 09.09.2013, 09:10 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
Pushed now.
Thanks!
As long as the maintainers of gsfonts do not agree, there is no chance
I will upload it.
See here.
What if they don't reply? Escalate to d-devel?
- Fabian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
What if they don't reply? Escalate to d-devel?
Nothing. There is no way you can easily take over a package.
You *can* upload fonts-urw-base35 and do everything there is, *without*
sjhipping temporary gsfonts packages.
That is fine.
But package take over is difficult. As it was mentioned
Hi again,
Am Freitag, den 06.09.2013, 15:29 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
No, I fixed one more buglet, the path in the gs fontmap snippet
were pointing to
/usr/share/fonts/type/fonts-urw-base35/
which is wrong, the fonts are in .../urw-base35/ (no fonts- directory
part).
o_O Good
Dear Kenshi Muto, Masayuki Hatta and Roland Rosenfeld,
I contact you, because you are the latest active maintainers of the
gsfonts and gsfonts-x11 packages, respectively.
As you may have seen already in #721521, I am going to upload the
fonts-urw-base35 packages that contains the latest update
Hi Fabian,
On Sa, 07 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Maybe commited, but not yet pushed. Please do so.
Upps, probably - it is at the university now, cannot do anything.
Will push it tomorrow.
No, not yet. I admit, I am a bit puzzled about that as well. I have
Umpf. You *cannot* take over a
Hi Fabian,
a few comments:
On Do, 05 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Should be *really* ready for upload now! Please pull the latest commits,
though.
No, I fixed one more buglet, the path in the gs fontmap snippet
were pointing to
/usr/share/fonts/type/fonts-urw-base35/
which is
Am Mittwoch, den 04.09.2013, 14:22 +0200 schrieb Fabian Greffrath:
Should be fixed now in GIT. Please make sure to pull the latest changes
before uploading. It could use a test-run through piuparts, though, but
I currently do not have enough bandwidth to install a sid chroot. :/
The package
Hi Norbert et al.,
Am Mittwoch, den 04.09.2013, 10:00 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
For now we can upload. As long as the TeX Live package do not
ship symlinks to the new fonts nothing happens.
On the usptream (TeX Live) (I am also maintainer there) I will see if
we can prepare an
Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-09-04 00:10:20)
Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 22:06 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
If we hack the font, should we then better change some font
identifiers to ensure our flavor of the font is distinct from the
pristine one?
I would add +gs9.10 to the package
Hi Fabian,
On Mi, 04 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
On the usptream (TeX Live) (I am also maintainer there) I will see if
we can prepare an updated package for CTAN with the exact fonts,
which would solve the problem automatically.
I have contacted Walter and Karl, as you have seen. Let
Am Mittwoch, den 04.09.2013, 19:59 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
I'd say no, but I am sure that a huge glaring bug will occur the
second after the package is uploaded. :)
Sure, as usual. That is why we have unstable ;-)
Please wait a minute, I have found one!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Hi Norbert,
Am Mittwoch, den 04.09.2013, 19:59 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
I have contacted Walter and Karl, as you have seen. Let us see.
Yes, I have seen. Thanks!
In due time, there is no hurry, as the new fonts do not improve too
much over what is currently on CTAN/TL.
Sure, but
Dear Jonas and Norbert,
Am Montag, den 02.09.2013, 23:33 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-fonts/fonts-urw-base35.git
Cloned it, looks fine.
having seen that Debian #720906 has been closed, I have updated the
debian/copyright file for fonts-urw-base35
Hi Fabian,
On Di, 03 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
like to ask you to review the package and upload if appropriate.
First question:
Why
2:20130628-1
this package has never been released to Debian. Since you are building
gsfonts which is currently at 1:8.11 would
On Di, 03 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Yes, you are right. Since 20130628 8.11 an epoch 1: should be
sufficient. My idea was, since we need an epoch anyway, I could raise it
to separate the new package from the gsfonts versioning scheme.
Ok, makes sense.
Great, thanks! Are you going to
Hello Norbert,
thanks for the review!
Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 23:30 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
this package has never been released to Debian. Since you are building
gsfonts which is currently at 1:8.11 would
1:20130628-1
not suffice? (Or what am I missing?)
Yes, you are
Am Mittwoch, den 04.09.2013, 00:04 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
Not necessarily for now. I just sponsor it if you are fine with that.
Yes, sure.
Is the coverage of the new gsfonts/fonts-urw as wide as the coverage
of the fonts currently in TeX Live? Or, in other words, is it a
complete
Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-09-03 10:09:28)
Dear Jonas and Norbert,
Am Montag, den 02.09.2013, 23:33 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-fonts/fonts-urw-base35.git
Cloned it, looks fine.
having seen that Debian #720906 has been closed, I have
Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-09-03 17:26:40)
I am still considering, by the way, to do what ghostscript did with
the fonts and reset the font name and font family fields in the binary
files to match those of the gsfonts release...
Why? Sounds like a _very_ bad idea to me (no matter if
Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-09-03 21:35:11)
Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 20:06 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
Why? Sounds like a _very_ bad idea to me (no matter if others did
similar bad stuff in the past).
Because the font names may be hard coded somewhere (the internal
FontName
Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-09-03 21:36:04)
[Resent to get rid of that typo in gsfo...@packages.debian.org.]
Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 10:35 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
Oh, I am surprised: I thought your intend was to maintain it, not
prepare it for others to maintain.
You
Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 22:06 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
Could it be that there is a good reason for the renaming?
Honestly, I have no idea.
Might it affect some uses of the official font that we distort it? An
example coming to my mind is Postscript files referencing a font
Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 10:35 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
Oh, I am surprised: I thought your intend was to maintain it, not
prepare it for others to maintain.
You misread me! I was just surprised that I announce for about a week
now that I am going to replace the gsfonts and
[Resent to get rid of that typo in gsfo...@packages.debian.org.]
Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 10:35 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
Oh, I am surprised: I thought your intend was to maintain it, not
prepare it for others to maintain.
You misread me! I was just surprised that I announce for
Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 20:06 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
Why? Sounds like a _very_ bad idea to me (no matter if others did
similar bad stuff in the past).
Because the font names may be hard coded somewhere (the internal
FontName and FontFamily fields, I am not talking about the
On Di, 03 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Why? Sounds like a _very_ bad idea to me (no matter if others did
similar bad stuff in the past).
Because the font names may be hard coded somewhere (the internal
FontName and FontFamily fields, I am not talking about the file names).
One
Hi Fabian,
many emails, short answer.
On Mi, 04 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
The only system that also uses this font and that I am not sure about
the effect of the changed FontName field is latex. That is why I kindly
That will break with renaming, since the map files list the
Am Montag, den 02.09.2013, 09:08 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
Can easily be done.
We must not forget to remove the symlinks from
texlive-fonts-recommended's copy of these fonts
into /usr/share/fonts/type1 then.
Let me know where your git (or svn) repo is and I can help on that package.
On Mo, 02 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
We must not forget to remove the symlinks from
texlive-fonts-recommended's copy of these fonts
into /usr/share/fonts/type1 then.
Sure.
Anything else?
http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-fonts/fonts-urw-base35.git
Cloned it, looks fine.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com
* Package name: fonts-urw-base35
Version : 2:20130628-1
Upstream Author : (URW)++ Design Development
* URL : http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/fonts/
* License : GPL (needs
Le 1 sept. 2013 17:09, Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com a écrit :
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com
* Package name: fonts-urw-base35
Version : 2:20130628-1
Upstream Author : (URW)++ Design Development
* URL :
Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-09-01 17:06:36)
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Fabian Greffrath fab...@greffrath.com
* Package name: fonts-urw-base35
Version : 2:20130628-1
Upstream Author : (URW)++ Design Development
* URL :
Hi Fabian,
On So, 01 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
* Package name: fonts-urw-base35
Version : 2:20130628-1
Good idea, thanks for pushing that forward.
Finally, I am going to convince the texlive maintainers to replace their copy
of these fonts in the
Am Sonntag, den 01.09.2013, 20:03 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
Saying this is the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts is
incorrect: Only the original Adobe set is _the_ base fonts, this is
merely a metrics-compatible alternative set of fonts.
Very valid point!
Description: font
41 matches
Mail list logo
