>> BTW, *IF* arch is putting this on the 'core' cd , then yeah, we should >> remove it, but the last time I did a full up archinstall, it was NOT >> on the cd, so I am willing to bet that we can remove it easily enough >> too if it has been added into the install cd. > > Archlinux currently offers two installation media types. The FTP and the > Core CD. Although the extra repo isnt included in either, the > possibility of providing a DVD as an alternative installation method has > been > discussed a lot in the past and hasnt been dropped completely as far as > i know. > >> You already said above that this package would comply/conform if a >> copy of the license is included. I am glad you found said license. >> Let's just include it and be done with things. > > No, that is just one part of it. The license is needed anyway for the > package to stay in repos and was bound to be added sooner or later. > What is more important in my opinion, but havent got the knowledge nor > the time at this point to investigate further is whether, just like the > codecs package, a similar or maybe even better behaviour can be achieved > by the use of open source fonts. > > I thought, or better yet hoped, that somebody more relevant than me, who > actually have experience, and deal with fonts on a daily basis post on > this thread and allow the conversation to go further. Maybe i was wrong. > Since the above hasnt happened yet i see absolutely no point in > continuing this either. > > Personally i will try to investigate this when i have the time and if i > get any worth posting results, i will let u know. > > Greg Actually I *DID* see a message, prior to your response to me and in this thread, wherein it said that these m$ fonts work better because they did not require additional anti-aliasing setup. I agree with this too, they work fine and without any fiddling. Very best regards; Bob Finch
