On Di, 03 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Yes, you are right. Since 20130628 >> 8.11 an epoch "1:" should be > sufficient. My idea was, since we need an epoch anyway, I could raise it > to separate the new package from the gsfonts versioning scheme.
Ok, makes sense. > Great, thanks! Are you going to add yourself to Uploaders? Not necessarily for now. I just sponsor it if you are fine with that. > e.g. /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/map/dvips/helvetic/uhv.map > explicitely mentions the font name "NimbusSanL-Regu". However, this has > slightly changed in fonts-urw-base35. Is this something that needs to be > patched in texlive? By now we are shipping the URW fonts in TeX Live without links (/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/urw/) Is the coverage of the new gsfonts/fonts-urw as wide as the coverage of the fonts currently in TeX Live? Or, in other words, is it a complete replacement? IN this case I can arrange that in the next upload of TeX Live packages we do *not* ship the fonts, but dpend on fonts-urw* and link to the files. Norbert ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130903150441.gf12...@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at
