On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:26:22PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
No, my argument is that the problem this tries to protect against is purely cosmetic, and is cosmetic in an area which has little practical importance. That makes it very low in my priority scale. Nevertheless I would support the fix anyway if it was safe. But it is not safe, it's trading a problem which has no real practical consequences, for problems that do have practical consequences.
It's too easy to say packagers just have to do better, packager time is not limitless, it's a precious resource people are asking to squander just because they can here. The day I have three candidates to package each font the design team asks for I'll support this kind of nitpicking, but in the meanwhile this kind of "just do it, packagers have to bear the burden of working around rpm limits at any cost, even for cosmetic issues" is not practical at all.
+1.
Rich.