> Andreas Bierfert wrote: > > 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). > > I believe this would be the best solution available. > > The -system package can contain just a symlink to the wine-specific > font directory. > > > 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. > > I wonder, are all wine-provided fonts just (non-identical) > replacements for Microsoft fonts, or is this the case only for > WineTahoma? > > If there are likely to be similar issues with other wine fonts, could > we just install all of them to wine-specific font directory and then > create a new package "wine-fonts-system" that would depend on > "wine-fonts" and installed symlinks into system-wide font directory > for all the wine fonts? > > The result would be: > * If you install wine, all wine fonts are installed just for wine, > the rest of the system is not touched. > * If you install wine-fonts-system, all the wine fonts are available > system-wide. Andreas, what do you think? If you are not fond of this complete solution, can you implement at least the wine-tahoma-fonts vs wine-tahoma-fonts-system separation, as you proposed? Thanks. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
