I do not see a maintainability benefit here, we aren't packaging the bootstrap CSS framework, are we? This font in the case of this one package is used in the HTML documentation for the package. The majority use case for this font is to be paired with bootstrap, to be rendered by a web browser, you are going to encounter it dozens of times a week on various websites already. Since this font is likely to be used by web applications as a TTF/OTF/WOFF web-font how are we going to handle the selinux context to allow the httpd access to the font file, or any other application server that runs an application packaged in the collection? Stefan Nuxoll <stefan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:stefan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> ---------------------------------------- > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > From: ppisar@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Packaged fonts? (and regular audits?) > Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:07:15 +0000 > > On 2015-07-14, Stefan Nuxoll <stefan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This is going to be pretty common for anything that uses the bootstrap >> CSS framework, since glyphicons is bundled as part of it. I do not see >> much benefit from packaging this separately, especially as the license >> for the glyphicons halflings font included with bootstrap is MIT, but >> CC-BY from the upstream (glyphicons.org). >> > This is not matter of license. This matter of mainainability and > security. Did you know that T42 fonts can contain code which is interpreted > by font rendering engine? > > -- Petr > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
