Dear all, Thank you for taking the time to submit this NMU diff, and that for -1.3. In particular, the build-arch and build-indep was a good idea that is useful for an upcoming future release, so the build daemons on less powerful architectures won't fail trying to run the CPU and memory intensive FontForge processes.
However, some other parts of the diff were, as I would say, "well-intentioned but misguided", and the use of terms like "bogus" is most unfortunate, and downright offensive, especially those individuals who have sacrificed years of their livelihood working on this font in compliance with the guidelines set by the Unicode Consortium. I am no expert in this area, and I will leave the various experts watching this bug report to offer a more comprehensive explanation. I know, we Debian Developers are also busy people, and we were just trying to get the job done to improve the user experience. We had surely long forgotten a random word that we had chosen when we tried to write a quick changelog entry. But a careless choice of word can indeed be offensive and poisonous. Let's all of us (myself included) keep that in mind as we strive to make Debian a truly welcoming community. Cheers, Anthony On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Samuel Bronson <naes...@gmail.com> wrote: > Package: unifont > Version: 1:5.1.20080914-1.1 > Severity: normal > Tags: patch pending > > Dear maintainer, > > Paul Wise and I have prepared an NMU for unifont (versioned as > 1:5.1.20080914-1.2) and uploaded it to unstable. > > Regards. > > -- > Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
