Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 3:10 AM, Adam Borowski wrote: > https://github.com/googlei18n/glyphsLib/issues/74 Wasn't aware of glyphsLib/fontmake, thanks for the link! -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 09:02:09PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > Ultimately we need something to change in the upstream fonts community > though; either one of the existing font tools needs to add Glyphs > support or Glyphsapp folks need to release some sort of free toolkit > for it. Otherwise this is

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Guys, thanks for taking the time to discuss this issue with me. Thanks for your patience, I hope the thread was interesting :) > Since I am the one who sponsored the 1.204-1 upload, I will also do the > next one. I will just re-upload

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

Guys, thanks for taking the time to discuss this issue with me. Since I am the one who sponsored the 1.204-1 upload, I will also do the next one. I will just re-upload the package with its section changed to contrib/fonts. Is this sufficient or is there anything else needed? Thanks for your

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

On Sat, 2017-01-21 at 12:39 +0100, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > I find this by far the most convincing argument, although I still find > it difficult to accept that it should make a difference for Debian as a > mere downstream distributor. We provide many packages with fonts in OTF > format and

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

On January 21, 2017 6:39:17 AM EST, Fabian Greffrath wrote: >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >Hash: SHA256 > >I admit it's a bit hard to argue against three, but I'll try anyway. ;) > >Am Mittwoch, den 18.01.2017, 01:12 + schrieb Scott Kitterman: >> DFSG #2 requires

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2017-01-21 12:39:17) >> FYI, you are mistaken that C code is always "source". C is sometimes >> generated from other forms, via transpilers or lexer generators etc. >> It can also be obfuscated C code from the real C source (cf #383465). >> [...] >> So like C, OTF can

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I admit it's a bit hard to argue against three, but I'll try anyway. ;) Am Mittwoch, den 18.01.2017, 01:12 + schrieb Scott Kitterman: > DFSG #2 requires that "The program must include source > code".  Preferred form of modification is the

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Please note that the "preferred form for modification" is a term > exclusive to the GPL, it does not necessarily apply to fonts licensed > under any other license. Also, I am not sure if this is really exactly > what is meant by the

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:29 PM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > But the OTF format itself is just as suitable a source format for fonts as > any other format. Why is it so important what upstream has chosen? It is > not that font composition is a human-readable-to-binary-one-way-road like >

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

On January 17, 2017 3:49:46 PM EST, Fabian Greffrath wrote: >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >Hash: SHA256 > >Am Mittwoch, den 18.01.2017, 03:24 +1100 schrieb Ben Finney: >> Debian recipients should have equal access to make modifications to >> the work, build the work

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Oh, I just remembered I once had a short conversation with RMS about the distribution of the ghostscript fonts in binary Type1 format albeit being licensed under the terms of the GPL: Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:02:32 -0500 From: Richard Stallman

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Am Mittwoch, den 18.01.2017, 03:24 +1100 schrieb Ben Finney: > Debian recipients should have equal access to make modifications to > the work, build the work from modified source, and install the > result. All these modifications could be made to

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

On 17-Jan-2017, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Paul Wise wrote: > > […] The issue is that there is no Free Software in Debian main > > that can build the OTF from source. […] > > But the OTF format itself is just as suitable a source format for > fonts as any other format. Why is it so important what

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

Paul Wise wrote: > The issue isn't that they currently use proprietary software to > convert to OTF format. The issue is that there is no Free Software in > Debian main that can build the OTF from source. This is a clear > violation of Debian policy and that indicates the package needs to be > in

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:32 PM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > thank you very much for your bug report. However, I believe you are wrong > with applying RC severity to this issue and I have added FTP-Masters to CC > in the hope for clarification. I agree with Ben on this issue.

Bug#851339: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

Dear Ben, thank you very much for your bug report. However, I believe you are wrong with applying RC severity to this issue and I have added FTP-Masters to CC in the hope for clarification. Ben Finney wrote: > I see now that this refers to a proprietary program named Glyphs, as a > program used

Bug#851339: fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies

Control: retitle -1 fonts-firacode: package in Debian with non-Debian build dependencies On 14-Jan-2017, Ben Finney wrote: > Thank you for determining the absence of the source form for this > work; I see the comment in ‘debian/copyright’ added for this package > version, informing the reader