Hi Rajeesh, On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar <rajeeshknambiar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Nicolas Spalinger > <nicolas_spalinger@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 11/16/2014 05:22 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I'd like to maintain/co-maintain PT Serif[1] and PT Mono[2] fonts by >>> paratype. Would it be better to include them in the existing PT >>> Sans[3] fonts package - incorporate in the same spec as multiple >>> packages, or as individual specs? >>> >>> Here's the altered spec file[4] and srpm[5] combining all 3 paratype >>> fonts. (Note the hack in %prep phase due to source packages containing >>> same file names). What do you think? >>> >>> [1] http://www.paratype.com/uni/public/PTSerif.zip >>> [2] http://www.paratype.com/uni/public/PTMono.zip >> >> >> Thanks for taking care of packaging these fonts! >> >> BTW, I suspect you want >> http://www.fontstock.com/public/PTSerifOFL.zip >> http://www.fontstock.com/public/PTMonoOFL.zip >> instead of the ones with Paratype's very own incompatible foundry-specific license. >> >> The links are not prominently displayed but the .zip files are still there. > > Thank you all for the inputs, greatly helpful. As Nicolas Mahilot also > suggested, I will open separate review requests for PT Serif and PT > Mono fonts and use the OFL source. > > nim, how did you check for Unicode codepoint correctness in the fonts? > I don't get what you want here exactly but to check the coverage of scripts in the fonts I use fontaine command on the binary font file. Regards, Parag. _______________________________________________ fonts mailing list fonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/
