Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 22:06 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > Could it be that there is a good reason for the renaming?
Honestly, I have no idea. > Might it affect some uses of the official font that we distort it? An > example coming to my mind is Postscript files referencing a font without > embedding it - produced on a host with the pristine font installed). > > Is there perhaps a way to "symlink" old FontName to new one - in TeX > and/or in fontconfig or other places? It should be no issue for Ghostscript and X11, as they map font names to files via /etc/ghostscript/fontmap.d/10fonts-urw-base35.conf and /etc/X11/fonts/Type1/fonts-urw-base35.scale respectively. It was, however, an issue for fontconfig which works on font names. The rules in /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-metric-aliases.conf did not apply anymore, because they matched on font names. But i was able to fix this with /etc/fonts/conf.d/31-fonts-urw-base35.conf which maps the old font names to the new ones. The only system that also uses this font and that I am not sure about the effect of the changed FontName field is latex. That is why I kindly ask Norbert to test the psnfss package with the new fonts. I will also try to do some test, but will not get to it before Thursday (or even next week). > If we "hack" the font, should we then better change some font > identifiers to ensure our flavor of the font is distinct from the > pristine one? I would add "+gs9.10" to the package version number then. > To me it seems we have a chance of shipping a commercial grade font in > its pristine form, and I worry that we ruin that opportunity. That's really an important point! Let's see how latex reacts to the mofified font names and then further discuss how to proceed. Good night, - Fabian -- 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/1378246220.4696.10.camel@kff50
