On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 5:21 PM, imag1nary
number<imag1narynum...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:21:15 -0700
>> Subject: Fonts in the Graphics Meta
>> From: aftertheb...@gmail.com
>> To: ubuntu-studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
>>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> I was up late working on a poster and for the life of me couldn't find
>> the perfect font for the job. That's when I did an 'apt-cache search
>> font' and realized that there's a massive cornucopia of font packages
>> in the repositories awaiting my install. That's when I thought to
>> myself: "Self, why aren't these font packages part of the Ubuntu
>> Studio graphics meta package?"
>>
>> I think it would be organizationally best (if the list concurs that
>> fonts in the graphics package would be good) to have a font meta
>> package that is in turn a dependency of the graphics meta (simply
>> because the sheer number of font packages would clutter the graphics
>> package if added directly). The other question on my mind is "would
>> it be okay to include non-free fonts in this meta?" and for that I
>> turn the floor over to those more experienced...
>>
>> -Eric Hedekar
>>
>
> I agree that this is a good idea. I also agree with Cory K. in that only
> the free fonts would be bundled. And of course, those are the ones that
> should be used for paying gigs anyhow. :-)
>
> ~ imag1narynumber
As for that list of fonts, there are a number of "traditional
japanese" or other similar language-specific fonts that I noticed when
searching the other night. Should these be included in the font meta
or should we stick to western lettered fonts (I know there's a proper
name for these)?
-Eric
--
_______________________________________
http://greyrockstudio.blogspot.com
--
Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list
Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
