1 |
On 28 February 2015 at 19:52, Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 02/28/2015 01:47 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: |
3 |
>>> |
4 |
>>> Since this is mostly used for web developers, I recommend to leave it |
5 |
>>> off for desktop users, but possibly on for servers, for example. |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> If we do the use expand, we should leave it up for users to set. I |
8 |
>> suggest we default to only otf, if there is a choice. Other formats |
9 |
>> should not be installed by default, unless it's the only option for |
10 |
>> that package. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
> |
13 |
> This is going to get confusing fast -- please consider just installing |
14 |
> everything by default. If you default to "only OTF," what happens when |
15 |
> you install a foo-ttf package? Is it a no-op? What if there's a package |
16 |
> that only ships WOFF files? A combination of TTF and WOFF? |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Most of the fonts are tiny and it's not worth the hassle to avoid a few |
19 |
> kilobytes. It will also keep the eclass nice and clean. If you default |
20 |
> to installing everything, then when a user goes out of his way to remove |
21 |
> (say) WOFF, you can go ahead and just ignore WOFF files even if the |
22 |
> result is something stupid like an empty package. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> (The webfonts might be useful for clients, by the way. If they're not |
25 |
> installed locally, your browser downloads them on-demand and caches them |
26 |
> for later use.) |
27 |
> |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
Actually, after thinking about it some more, and doing some more |
31 |
research, I think this approach is unnecessary. Unless someone can |
32 |
tell me otherwise, I don't think we have any software that can handle |
33 |
truetype fonts but not opentype fonts. Most if not all of these |
34 |
packages use media-libs/freetype, which displays both formats just |
35 |
fine. So when we have font packages that offer both ttf and otf, then |
36 |
we should just install the superior format, which is OpenType. |
37 |
|
38 |
For packages that only offer one format, we install that format. |
39 |
|
40 |
Webfonts are also not an issue, as they are simply repackaged OpenType |
41 |
fonts aimed at web delivery. But most web developers use third party |
42 |
CDNs for that, such as Google Fonts. For the very few people who want |
43 |
to serve WOFF fonts from their own websites, I'm sure they can locate |
44 |
them as necessary. |
45 |
|
46 |
And webfonts are not useful for clients. Users should simply install |
47 |
the otf (or ttf) format of those fonts locally, and they will be |
48 |
picked up instead of the webfonts. |
49 |
|
50 |
Summarized, I propose the following policy: |
51 |
|
52 |
1. If there is a choice of formats between otf and ttf, install only otf. |
53 |
2. Do not install webfonts. |
54 |
|
55 |
Your thoughts? |
56 |
-- |
57 |
Cheers, |
58 |
|
59 |
Ben | yngwin |
60 |
Gentoo developer |