Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
> Does anyone have any objections if we standardize that as a > policyrecommendation and update the lintian tests to match?Not at all, please > go ahead!Cheers, - Fabian Von meinem/meiner Galaxy gesendet Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Soren Stoutner Datum: 11.06.26 22:22 (GMT+01:00) An: [email protected], Debian Fonts Betreff: Re: Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong On Thursday, June 11, 2026 1:05:20 PM Mountain Standard Time Fabian Greffrath wrote:> > Is anyone aware of any problems caused by the packages that do place themin> > /usr/share/fonts/WOFF/ or> > /usr/share/fonts/WOFF2/?> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=8> > 63835This refers to Xetex, but may apply to other applications as well. -That is an informative bug report. The upstream conversation indicates it still isn’t resolved.https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/fontconfig/fontconfig/-/work_items/92Based on that, I think Debian should consider it a bug for WOFF or WOFF2 fonts to be installed under /usr/share/fonts/.It appears that the convention currently used by several packages is:/usr/share/fonts-fontname/woff//usr/share/fonts-fontname/woff2/Does anyone have any objections if we standardize that as a policy recommendation and update the lintian tests to match?-- Soren [email protected]
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
On Thursday, June 11, 2026 1:05:20 PM Mountain Standard Time Fabian Greffrath wrote: > > Is anyone aware of any problems caused by the packages that do place themin > > /usr/share/fonts/WOFF/ or > > /usr/share/fonts/WOFF2/? > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=8 > > 63835This refers to Xetex, but may apply to other applications as well. - That is an informative bug report. The upstream conversation indicates it still isn’t resolved. https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/fontconfig/fontconfig/-/work_items/92 Based on that, I think Debian should consider it a bug for WOFF or WOFF2 fonts to be installed under /usr/share/fonts/. It appears that the convention currently used by several packages is: /usr/share/fonts-fontname/woff/ /usr/share/fonts-fontname/woff2/ Does anyone have any objections if we standardize that as a policy recommendation and update the lintian tests to match? -- Soren Stoutner [email protected] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
> Is anyone aware of any problems caused by the packages that do place themin > /usr/share/fonts/WOFF/ or > /usr/share/fonts/WOFF2/?https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=863835This > refers to Xetex, but may apply to other applications as well. - Fabian Von > meinem/meiner Galaxy gesendet Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Soren Stoutner Datum: 11.06.26 18:04 (GMT+01:00) An: [email protected], Debian Fonts Betreff: Re: Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong On Wednesday, June 10, 2026 12:39:36 AM Mountain Standard Time [email protected] wrote:> Am 2026-06-10 01:41, schrieb Soren Stoutner:> > 1. Is there a general consensus in Debian that WOFF2 and other web> > fonts> > should be shipped by font packages (when there is a need for them) and> > that> > they should be installed under /usr/share/fonts/?> > In the font packages that I maintain, I generally keep the web fonts in> the same package as the TTF/OTF variants, but keep them out of the> /usr/share/fonts name space. The reason is that (1) they are duplicates> anyway and (2) fontconfig may pick them up as valid candidates for font> rendering but they will mostly fail to get rendered. (I think their> headers look like regular TTF fonts, but their actual content is> compressed).1. Where do you place them? I see some examples of /usr/share/custom-font-directory/.https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-atkinson-hyperlegible-web/filelist2. Is anyone aware of any problems caused by the packages that do place them in /usr/share/fonts/WOFF/ or /usr/share/fonts/WOFF2/?https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-dejavu-web/filelisthttps://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-thai-tlwg-web/filelistHere is an example of a package that does both. I am not sure what the purpose of that is:https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont/filelist-- Soren [email protected]
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
> Where do you place them? I see some examples of > /usr/share/custom-font-directory/.See fonts-firacode, for > example:https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-firacode/filelist - Fabian > Von meinem/meiner Galaxy gesendet Ursprüngliche Nachricht Von: Soren Stoutner Datum: 11.06.26 18:04 (GMT+01:00) An: [email protected], Debian Fonts Betreff: Re: Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong On Wednesday, June 10, 2026 12:39:36 AM Mountain Standard Time [email protected] wrote:> Am 2026-06-10 01:41, schrieb Soren Stoutner:> > 1. Is there a general consensus in Debian that WOFF2 and other web> > fonts> > should be shipped by font packages (when there is a need for them) and> > that> > they should be installed under /usr/share/fonts/?> > In the font packages that I maintain, I generally keep the web fonts in> the same package as the TTF/OTF variants, but keep them out of the> /usr/share/fonts name space. The reason is that (1) they are duplicates> anyway and (2) fontconfig may pick them up as valid candidates for font> rendering but they will mostly fail to get rendered. (I think their> headers look like regular TTF fonts, but their actual content is> compressed).1. Where do you place them? I see some examples of /usr/share/custom-font-directory/.https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-atkinson-hyperlegible-web/filelist2. Is anyone aware of any problems caused by the packages that do place them in /usr/share/fonts/WOFF/ or /usr/share/fonts/WOFF2/?https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-dejavu-web/filelisthttps://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-thai-tlwg-web/filelistHere is an example of a package that does both. I am not sure what the purpose of that is:https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont/filelist-- Soren [email protected]
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
On Wednesday, June 10, 2026 12:39:36 AM Mountain Standard Time [email protected] wrote: > Am 2026-06-10 01:41, schrieb Soren Stoutner: > > 1. Is there a general consensus in Debian that WOFF2 and other web > > fonts > > should be shipped by font packages (when there is a need for them) and > > that > > they should be installed under /usr/share/fonts/? > > In the font packages that I maintain, I generally keep the web fonts in > the same package as the TTF/OTF variants, but keep them out of the > /usr/share/fonts name space. The reason is that (1) they are duplicates > anyway and (2) fontconfig may pick them up as valid candidates for font > rendering but they will mostly fail to get rendered. (I think their > headers look like regular TTF fonts, but their actual content is > compressed). 1. Where do you place them? I see some examples of /usr/share/custom-font- directory/. https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-atkinson-hyperlegible-web/filelist 2. Is anyone aware of any problems caused by the packages that do place them in /usr/share/fonts/WOFF/ or /usr/share/fonts/WOFF2/? https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-dejavu-web/filelist https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-thai-tlwg-web/filelist Here is an example of a package that does both. I am not sure what the purpose of that is: https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont/filelist -- Soren Stoutner [email protected] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
Am 2026-06-10 01:41, schrieb Soren Stoutner: 1. Is there a general consensus in Debian that WOFF2 and other web fonts should be shipped by font packages (when there is a need for them) and that they should be installed under /usr/share/fonts/? In the font packages that I maintain, I generally keep the web fonts in the same package as the TTF/OTF variants, but keep them out of the /usr/share/fonts name space. The reason is that (1) they are duplicates anyway and (2) fontconfig may pick them up as valid candidates for font rendering but they will mostly fail to get rendered. (I think their headers look like regular TTF fonts, but their actual content is compressed). 2. If not, what is the recommended way for these fonts to be packaged? I'd recommend as above. Cheers, - Fabian
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-06-10 01:41:45) > My questions for the mailing list are these: > > 1. Is there a general consensus in Debian that WOFF2 and other web fonts > should be shipped by font packages (when there is a need for them) and that > they should be installed under /usr/share/fonts/? > > 2. If not, what is the recommended way for these fonts to be packaged? If you seek a general consensus in Debian, then it seems more sensible to me to raise the question in Debian generally, rather than within a team context. That said, I find it sensible to raise it in the team, just wanted to point out that limited scope of discussion implies limited range of replies. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
I have a question for the Debian Fonts mailing list regarding the correct way to package WOFF2 (or WOFF or other web font formats). As background, a number of applications in Debian include fonts as part of their upstream tarballs. Generally, it is considered best to remove these fonts from the Debian packages and depend instead on the appropriate Debian font package. In the case of web applications, in recent years the use of WOFF and WOFF2 fonts have become common. WOFF and WOFF2 are compressed versions of TTF and OTF fonts. There are a number of tools in Debian that can perform these conversions, like woff2_compress or sfnt2woff-zopfli. There are a number of fonts packages in Debian that already ship WOFF or WOFF2 fonts. Sometimes they do this in separate binary packages (offen suffixed by -web) and other times they do this in the same binary package that ships the TTF and OTF fonts. For example: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fonts-dejavu https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fonts-atkinson-hyperlegible https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fonts-tlwg https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont I maintain the redmine package, which is a web application that ships several WOFF2 versions of NotoSans in the upstream tarball. I filed #1116004 requesting that fonts-noto start shipping WOFF2 versions of their fonts so I could stop shipping them in redmine. The bug report went unanswered for a while until a DM named Manuel Guerra prepared an MR that added a new binary package named fonts-noto-web. This MR was posted to the bug report, at which point one of the maintainers of fonts-noto, Jonas Smedegaard, responded to the bug report suggesting one of the utilities for converting TTF to WOFF2. Alexandre Detiste reviewed Manuel Guerra’s MR and sponsored it as a team upload. After the upload, Jonas Smedegaard objected to the changes, reverting them entirely with the next upload. I believe this was the first time than anyone involved had any indication that he was displeased in any way with what was being done. The core of his objection appears to be that he thinks some other package should produce the WOFF2 fonts instead of fonts-noto. He expresses this here: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1116004#95 My understanding is that there is a consensus in Debian that fonts should generally be shipped only by font packages, and that those fonts should be installed under /usr/share/fonts/. This is reflected in the following lintain tags: https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/font-in-non-font-package https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/font-outside-font-dir Jonas’ opinion is that this only applies to font formats like TTF and OTF, not WOFF and WOFF2, even though these two lintian tags flag against the WOFF2 fonts in redmine. https://udd.debian.org/lintian/? email1=&email2=&email3=&packages=redmine&ignpackages=&format=html<_error=on<_warning=on<_information=on&lintian_tag=#all My questions for the mailing list are these: 1. Is there a general consensus in Debian that WOFF2 and other web fonts should be shipped by font packages (when there is a need for them) and that they should be installed under /usr/share/fonts/? 2. If not, what is the recommended way for these fonts to be packaged? -- Soren Stoutner [email protected] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
On Tuesday, May 26, 2026 2:39:50 PM Mountain Standard Time Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-05-26 21:33:51) > > > On Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:24:25 PM Mountain Standard Time Jonas Smedegaard > > > > wrote: > > > You asked for possibilities, I provided you are list of possibilities > > > which you then ignored, and insist on the one approach that you try to > > > frame as already common in Debian. I fail to recognize that to be the > > > established common approach, and I dislike you framing me as being the > > > weird stubborn outsider here. > > > > I am not trying to frame you as being a stubborn outsider here. I am just > > trying to discuss my understanding of how these scenarios are typically > > handled in Debian. > > Right. > > I am not interested in discussing only *your* understanding, omitting > other views or ideas or proposals. Can you provide any information that the other ways you proposed dealing with the situation are the consensus for how WOFF2 fonts should be packaged in Debian? -- Soren Stoutner [email protected] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-05-26 21:33:51) > On Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:24:25 PM Mountain Standard Time Jonas Smedegaard > wrote: > > You asked for possibilities, I provided you are list of possibilities > > which you then ignored, and insist on the one approach that you try to > > frame as already common in Debian. I fail to recognize that to be the > > established common approach, and I dislike you framing me as being the > > weird stubborn outsider here. > > I am not trying to frame you as being a stubborn outsider here. I am just > trying to discuss my understanding of how these scenarios are typically > handled in Debian. Right. I am not interested in discussing only *your* understanding, omitting other views or ideas or proposals. - Jonas. -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
On Tuesday, May 26, 2026 12:24:25 PM Mountain Standard Time Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-05-26 20:00:58) > > > It seems we have been suffering from a lack of communication, which isn’t my > > intention. Let me try to describe the problem from the beginning in a way > > that I hope will be more helpful. > > > > I believe it is the general consensus in Debian that fonts should only be > > packaged by font packages and that these fonts should be installed inside > > /usr/share/fonts/. > > > > This general consensus is expressed in the following two lintian tags: > > > > https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/font-in-non-font-package > > https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/font-outside-font-dir > > The above lintian tags are both about system fonts, not recompressions > of fonts targeted web browsers. Both of these tags flag against the WOFF2 fonts embedded in Redmine. https://udd.debian.org/lintian/? email1=&email2=&email3=&packages=redmine&ignpackages=&format=html<_error=on<_warning=on<_information=on&lintian_tag=#all > > Upstream programs are often packaged with embedded fonts, particularly web > > application. Sometimes these have slipped into the Debian packaging instead > > of properly being remove and simlinked to the appropriate Debian font > > package. Debian contains a number of such packages with inappropriate > > embedded fonts, some of which have existed in the archive for quite a long > > time. Redmine is such a package. Since taking over maintenance of the > > redmine package, I am attempting to clean up these packaging bugs. > > > > I do not think that all font packages need to ship .WOFF2 variants. I > > maintain the fonts-adobe-sourcesans3 package, wich doesn’t ship .WOFF2 fonts > > because there aren’t currently any package in Debian that would consume > > them. > > However, if a package were to start needed them, and a bug was filed against > > fonts-adobe-sourcesans3 request that I ship the .WOFF2 fonts, I would be > > happy to do so. > > > > Looking at how this is handled by other font packages, sometimes they ship > > the .WOFF2 fonts in a separate binary package (sometimes named -web). In > > other instances they ship them in the same binary package as the other > > fonts. Either seems appropriate depending on the size of the font packages > > and the maintainer’s preference. > > > > My request is that you ship these fonts as part of the fonts-noto source > > package, either in one of the existing binary packages or in a new binary > > package. I genuinely do not understand why there would be any opposition to > > doing so. > > I am unaware of any consensus in Debian on how to handle recompression > of fonts for targeting web browsers. The optimal likely involves > subsetting to only include glyphs relevant for the scope of the web > application. Perhaps I am incorrect about there being a consensus on this topic. Would you prefer if I asked on the Debian Fonts mailing list? > You asked for possibilities, I provided you are list of possibilities > which you then ignored, and insist on the one approach that you try to > frame as already common in Debian. I fail to recognize that to be the > established common approach, and I dislike you framing me as being the > weird stubborn outsider here. I am not trying to frame you as being a stubborn outsider here. I am just trying to discuss my understanding of how these scenarios are typically handled in Debian. -- Soren Stoutner [email protected] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-05-26 20:00:58) > It seems we have been suffering from a lack of communication, which isn’t my > intention. Let me try to describe the problem from the beginning in a way > that I hope will be more helpful. > > I believe it is the general consensus in Debian that fonts should only be > packaged by font packages and that these fonts should be installed inside > /usr/share/fonts/. > > This general consensus is expressed in the following two lintian tags: > > https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/font-in-non-font-package > https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/font-outside-font-dir The above lintian tags are both about system fonts, not recompressions of fonts targeted web browsers. > Upstream programs are often packaged with embedded fonts, particularly web > application. Sometimes these have slipped into the Debian packaging instead > of properly being remove and simlinked to the appropriate Debian font > package. > Debian contains a number of such packages with inappropriate embedded fonts, > some of which have existed in the archive for quite a long time. Redmine is > such a package. Since taking over maintenance of the redmine package, I am > attempting to clean up these packaging bugs. > > I do not think that all font packages need to ship .WOFF2 variants. I > maintain the fonts-adobe-sourcesans3 package, wich doesn’t ship .WOFF2 fonts > because there aren’t currently any package in Debian that would consume them. > > However, if a package were to start needed them, and a bug was filed against > fonts-adobe-sourcesans3 request that I ship the .WOFF2 fonts, I would be > happy > to do so. > > Looking at how this is handled by other font packages, sometimes they ship > the > .WOFF2 fonts in a separate binary package (sometimes named -web). In other > instances they ship them in the same binary package as the other fonts. > Either seems appropriate depending on the size of the font packages and the > maintainer’s preference. > > My request is that you ship these fonts as part of the fonts-noto source > package, either in one of the existing binary packages or in a new binary > package. I genuinely do not understand why there would be any opposition to > doing so. I am unaware of any consensus in Debian on how to handle recompression of fonts for targeting web browsers. The optimal likely involves subsetting to only include glyphs relevant for the scope of the web application. You asked for possibilities, I provided you are list of possibilities which you then ignored, and insist on the one approach that you try to frame as already common in Debian. I fail to recognize that to be the established common approach, and I dislike you framing me as being the weird stubborn outsider here. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
It seems we have been suffering from a lack of communication, which isn’t my intention. Let me try to describe the problem from the beginning in a way that I hope will be more helpful. I believe it is the general consensus in Debian that fonts should only be packaged by font packages and that these fonts should be installed inside /usr/share/fonts/. This general consensus is expressed in the following two lintian tags: https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/font-in-non-font-package https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/font-outside-font-dir Upstream programs are often packaged with embedded fonts, particularly web application. Sometimes these have slipped into the Debian packaging instead of properly being remove and simlinked to the appropriate Debian font package. Debian contains a number of such packages with inappropriate embedded fonts, some of which have existed in the archive for quite a long time. Redmine is such a package. Since taking over maintenance of the redmine package, I am attempting to clean up these packaging bugs. I do not think that all font packages need to ship .WOFF2 variants. I maintain the fonts-adobe-sourcesans3 package, wich doesn’t ship .WOFF2 fonts because there aren’t currently any package in Debian that would consume them. However, if a package were to start needed them, and a bug was filed against fonts-adobe-sourcesans3 request that I ship the .WOFF2 fonts, I would be happy to do so. Looking at how this is handled by other font packages, sometimes they ship the .WOFF2 fonts in a separate binary package (sometimes named -web). In other instances they ship them in the same binary package as the other fonts. Either seems appropriate depending on the size of the font packages and the maintainer’s preference. My request is that you ship these fonts as part of the fonts-noto source package, either in one of the existing binary packages or in a new binary package. I genuinely do not understand why there would be any opposition to doing so. -- Soren Stoutner [email protected] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-05-26 01:52:39) > On Friday, May 15, 2026 10:16:15 AM Mountain Standard Time Jonas Smedegaard > wrote: > > Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-05-15 18:52:10) > > > > > It seems to me that the way this is generally handled in Debian is (f), > > > > How did you reach that conclusion? > > > > Here is a quick'n'dirty count: > > > > jonas@cairon:~$ apt-file search -l .woff2 | grep -c . > > 858 > > jonas@cairon:~$ apt-file search -l .woff2 | grep -c ^fonts- > > 35 > > > > What am I missing? > > Those are exactly the types of bugs I am attempting to fix. Specifically, > those trigger the following 2 lintian tags: > > https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/font-in-non-font-package > > https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/font-outside-font-dir > > You can see how those affect redmine: > > https://udd.debian.org/lintian/? > email1=&email2=&email3=&packages=redmine&ignpackages=&format=html<_error=on<_warning=on<_information=on&lintian_tag=#all > > As you noted, .WOFF2 fonts are particularly affected by this (858 times), > because a lot of upstream packages ship them in their tarballs, especially > web > applications. The purpose of this bug report is to handle this in a more > Debian-appropriate way for noto by shipping the .WOFF2 fonts in a font > package > and then linking to them from the web application. Sorry, I lost you there. You state Debian use a specific approach, and I ask you how you conclude that. I still don't read from this follow-up an elaboration on that. Do you mean to say that you agree that Debian currently package WOFF2 fonts in each binary package that needs them, and that you instead *envision* a different approach? Earlier, you asked how it could be done. It seems you don't care how it can be done, you already know how you want it done and only care to discuss that. I am not really excited to engage in that type of conversation, and hope that I am mistaken about that impression of your conversation scope here. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
On Friday, May 15, 2026 10:16:15 AM Mountain Standard Time Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-05-15 18:52:10) > > > It seems to me that the way this is generally handled in Debian is (f), > > How did you reach that conclusion? > > Here is a quick'n'dirty count: > > jonas@cairon:~$ apt-file search -l .woff2 | grep -c . > 858 > jonas@cairon:~$ apt-file search -l .woff2 | grep -c ^fonts- > 35 > > What am I missing? Those are exactly the types of bugs I am attempting to fix. Specifically, those trigger the following 2 lintian tags: https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/font-in-non-font-package https://udd.debian.org/lintian-tag/font-outside-font-dir You can see how those affect redmine: https://udd.debian.org/lintian/? email1=&email2=&email3=&packages=redmine&ignpackages=&format=html<_error=on<_warning=on<_information=on&lintian_tag=#all As you noted, .WOFF2 fonts are particularly affected by this (858 times), because a lot of upstream packages ship them in their tarballs, especially web applications. The purpose of this bug report is to handle this in a more Debian-appropriate way for noto by shipping the .WOFF2 fonts in a font package and then linking to them from the web application. -- Soren Stoutner [email protected] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-05-15 18:52:10) > It seems to me that the way this is generally handled in Debian is (f), How did you reach that conclusion? Here is a quick'n'dirty count: jonas@cairon:~$ apt-file search -l .woff2 | grep -c . 858 jonas@cairon:~$ apt-file search -l .woff2 | grep -c ^fonts- 35 What am I missing? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
On Friday, May 15, 2026 5:05:54 AM Mountain Standard Time Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Hi Soren, > > Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-05-14 19:04:29) > > > Is there a way we can ship the .woff2 versions of these fonts? > > I see several ways: > > a) have redmine build-depend on fonts-noto and a compressor, > and compress during build > b) have redmine depend on fonts-noto and a compressor, > and compress during install > c) introduce new source package src:fonts-noto-web that > build-depends on fonts-noto and a compressor > and compresses during build, > and then have redmine depend on fonts-noto-web > d) introduce new source package src:webfonts-common > which offers a hook for packages to request compression of fonts, > and have redmine depend on and provide hook for webfonts-common > e) convince maintainers of javascript-common to implement a hook > for compressing fonts, > and have redmine depend on and provide hook for webfonts-common > f) convince maintainers of fonts-noto to build-depend on a compressor > and extend the package with webfont-support, > and have redmine depend on that It seems to me that the way this is generally handled in Debian is (f), which is to have the fonts-noto source package compress and ship the woff2 fonts. In some cases they use a separate package called -web or something similar. https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fonts-dejavu https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fonts-atkinson-hyperlegible https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fonts-tlwg In other cases, they ship the woff2 fonts in a binary package that includes other font formats. https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont Is this something you would consider as the maintainer of the fonts-noto package? -- Soren Stoutner [email protected] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
Hi Soren, Quoting Soren Stoutner (2026-05-14 19:04:29) > Is there a way we can ship the .woff2 versions of these fonts? I see several ways: a) have redmine build-depend on fonts-noto and a compressor, and compress during build b) have redmine depend on fonts-noto and a compressor, and compress during install c) introduce new source package src:fonts-noto-web that build-depends on fonts-noto and a compressor and compresses during build, and then have redmine depend on fonts-noto-web d) introduce new source package src:webfonts-common which offers a hook for packages to request compression of fonts, and have redmine depend on and provide hook for webfonts-common e) convince maintainers of javascript-common to implement a hook for compressing fonts, and have redmine depend on and provide hook for webfonts-common f) convince maintainers of fonts-noto to build-depend on a compressor and extend the package with webfont-support, and have redmine depend on that - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#1116004: fonts-noto: fonts-noto-web is wrong
Jonas, Is there a way we can ship the .woff2 versions of these fonts? -- Soren Stoutner [email protected] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
