Re: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



After the discussion on two public lists, and some public and private
exchanges on IRC with people whose opinion I respect a lot, since no
one proposed a problem-free way to do dual format packaging, and many
objected to all this complexity just to work around
bugs, I propose the following simplified policy.

1. If upstream works with one preferred OpenType format (TTF or OTF),
use this format.

2. If a font is available in both TTF (OpenType TT) and OTF (OpenType
CCF) formats, package the most recent and complete version.

3. If both formats are generated from the same source upstream,
package the OTF (OpenType CCF) version. The reason is most font
editors work with cubic splines natively, and we don't ignore CFF
hinting the way we do TT hinting (different legal context), so the OTF
version may be slightly better in our context.

4. For already packaged fonts, continue to package the TTF (OpenType
TT) format till OO.o is fixed. The reason is to avoid upsetting users
that already created documents using the TTF version, that won't work
anymore if we switch to OTF under their feet. After OO.o is fixed
apply the same policy as for new packages.

5. As an exception, a maintainer is allowed to use his best judgement
and package both versions in a single rpm, if a user manages to
convince him it's not a terribly bad idea. (but never do it by
default). Bear in mind that in addition to the previously mentioned
problems that will double the package size so livecd and
bandwidth-constrained users won't be happy about it. But at least the
packaging will be simple.

6. Since it seems several projects use different font names for the
OTF and TTF variants, systematically package a fontconfig ruleset that
maps the font name we do not package to the one we do.

Is everyone happy with this? If you have a convincing argument to do
something else please speak up now. Otherwise I'll add these rules to
the wiki before the end of the week (and the start of my vacations),
and probably send them FPC/FESCO side so they can be officialized.

Also I propose:

7. Do not package new Type1 fonts. If someone cares about a Type1
font, he should get it converted to OpenType CFF before we consider
packaging it. (though it seems Type1 is moribund enough no one has
proposed new Type1 fonts in ages)


Nicolas Mailhot
Fontconfig mailing list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Fonts]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Kernel]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Gimp Graphics Editor]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux