On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 11:49 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le Mar 5 juin 2012 10:59, Kamil Paral a écrit : > > > If you are afraid there might be people out there who want wine-Tahoma as a > > system font, it is important to realize that those people are probably just a > > tiny fraction of the other side of the argument > > That's a dangerous argument, looks are subjective and every time someone > touches a font it deems ugly others disagree. That is exactly how I see this. On a side note: I personally have the package installed and don't find e. g. facebook particularly ugly or pretty. > It'd be much better if > 1. the wine font didn't declare a name too heavy for it I am no font expert but from my understanding it does not. Its name is WineTahoma (and WineTahomaBold respectively). Both fonts declare them to be part of the Tahoma family. From my understanding this is perfectly alright as they share some of the defining features of the MS Tahoma font (so maybe the looks differ). > 2. the font package was made technically optionnal so people who love the font > (I'm sure there are some like all the other times) can still use it Well this is the tricky part as I believe them essential for a standard wine setup. We could of course aim for a dual-solution: Let wine-tahoma-fonts put the fonts in the wine font dir (mandatory for wine) and add a wine-tahoma-fonts-system package (names suggestions welcome) which also puts the fonts in the system wide font path (optional). If this would be a feasible solution I would still like some opinions if this should be done for both fonts or just for the reported bugs about the bold version. -- Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
