On 3 October 2015 at 03:57, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 02.10.2015, 07:27 -0600 schrieb Dave Crossland:
> >> The official name is the rfn name; that's why the maintainer reserved
> >> the name. T
On 2 October 2015 at 07:50, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-10-02 at 07:27 -0600, Dave Crossland wrote:
>
> > Sources and binaries are not the same stuff.
>
> They are two different forms of the same stuff.
>
> One form is used by designers/developers to create new
On Oct 2, 2015 7:32 AM, "Norbert Preining" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > A format conversion is listed explicitly in the ofl as modification
> > triggering rfn permission / renaming, and converting source to binary
is a
> > kind of
On Oct 2, 2015 4:49 AM, "Paul Wise" wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 13:49:33 -0400 Dave Crossland wrote:
>
> > All the source files there not available elsewhere will resurface in
> > github.com/googlefonts/ soon :)
>
> Why there instead of the google fonts repo
A format conversion is listed explicitly in the ofl as modification
triggering rfn permission / renaming, and converting source to binary is a
kind of format change
On Oct 2, 2015 6:02 AM, "Norbert Preining" wrote:
> > What is the relationship between the googlefonts repos and the google
> > font
Hi
On 1 September 2015 at 04:55, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm maintaining the Play font in Debian, which currently builds the Play
> font from the sfd sources (attached) which was present in the google code
> repository. And I've been trying to figure out a bug[0] where the sfd files
> generate a rather
On 26 February 2012 17:33, Martin Erik Werner
wrote:
> Is the handling of fontforge scripts by fontforge-nox equivalant to
> that of standard fontforge?
Yes, I believe so.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact l
7 matches
Mail list logo
