Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#64743 - [gentium-plus-font] include Compact variant
Attached to Project:
Community Packages
Opened by grizzlyuser (grizzly) - Thursday, 05 December 2019, 11:38 GMT
Last edited by Ivy Foster (escondida) - Monday, 24 February 2020, 03:32 GMT
Opened by grizzlyuser (grizzly) - Thursday, 05 December 2019, 11:38 GMT
Last edited by Ivy Foster (escondida) - Monday, 24 February 2020, 03:32 GMT
|
DetailsDescription:
SIL provides Gentium Plus Compact variant of Gentium Plus font on their download page [1]. Please include it as well with regular variant. This would make an AUR package [2] not needed anymore. Additional info: * package version(s): gentium-plus-font 5.000-2 Steps to reproduce: 1. # pacman -Syu gentium-plus-font 2. pacman -Ql gentium-plus-font Expected results: GentiumPlusCompact-*.ttf fonts are in the package. As README.txt of Compact variant includes additional section TYPETUNER, it probably would make sense to include this as well, for example like README_COMPACT.txt. Actual results: GentiumPlusCompact-*.ttf fonts and appropriate README are not in the package. [1] https://software.sil.org/gentium/download/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-gentium-plus/ |
This task depends upon
Closed by Ivy Foster (escondida)
Monday, 24 February 2020, 03:32 GMT
Reason for closing: Implemented
Additional comments about closing: Added compact variant in 5.000-3
Monday, 24 February 2020, 03:32 GMT
Reason for closing: Implemented
Additional comments about closing: Added compact variant in 5.000-3
Is there a particular feature these separately-packaged files offer that the derived versions don't? If so, I'll happily add them to the package.
caleb, as I said in the closed bug you liniked, the package name is not changing: it is more straightforward to call a font a font. I don't care what type of files they are, and I'm not convinced there's a valid reason to. If SIL decides to ship otfs tomorrow, or include versions appropriate for use with troff, I will happily package those as well.