Well, I personally perfer to let font upstream maintain the config files for their fonts and leave the priority of fonts to users so they can adjust their preference without modifying contents in a file. On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:53 AM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I had created a fontconfig files for fonts from URW++, which are being used > as Core Font Set (Level 2) for ghostscript, and I have submitted these files > to upstream, asking them if they could include those files in their > repository (and subsequent releases): > https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=698333 > > After it I tried to update the fontconfig files, and found out you have > already done that. (Stupid of me being working with outdated files... :-/) > So, now I would like to know if you would prefer that Artifex (ghostscript > provider, and de-facto upstream for URW++ fonts releases) would keep the > fontconfig files as part of the URW fonts releases, or do you prefer to keep > the config files as part of fontconfig? > > I don't want to create any mess or duplication of work for anybody, that's > why I'm asking. > > Best regards, > > David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] > Associate Software Engineer > Brno, Czech Republic > > RED HAT | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. > Every airline in the Fortune 500 relies on Red Hat. > Find out why at Trusted | Red Hat. > > _______________________________________________ > Fontconfig mailing list > Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig > -- Akira TAGOH _______________________________________________ Fontconfig mailing list Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
