Hi Rajeesh,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar
<rajeeshknambiar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Nicolas Spalinger
<nicolas_spalinger(a)sil.org> wrote:
> On 11/16/2014 05:22 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to maintain/co-maintain PT Serif[1] and PT Mono[2] fonts by
>> paratype. Would it be better to include them in the existing PT
>> Sans[3] fonts package - incorporate in the same spec as multiple
>> packages, or as individual specs?
>>
>> Here's the altered spec file[4] and srpm[5] combining all 3 paratype
>> fonts. (Note the hack in %prep phase due to source packages containing
>> same file names). What do you think?
>>
>> [1]
http://www.paratype.com/uni/public/PTSerif.zip
>> [2]
http://www.paratype.com/uni/public/PTMono.zip
>
>
> Thanks for taking care of packaging these fonts!
>
> BTW, I suspect you want
>
http://www.fontstock.com/public/PTSerifOFL.zip
>
http://www.fontstock.com/public/PTMonoOFL.zip
> instead of the ones with Paratype's very own incompatible foundry-specific
license.
>
> The links are not prominently displayed but the .zip files are still there.
Thank you all for the inputs, greatly helpful. As Nicolas Mahilot also
suggested, I will open separate review requests for PT Serif and PT
Mono fonts and use the OFL source.
nim, how did you check for Unicode codepoint correctness in the fonts?
I don't get what you want here exactly but to check the coverage of
scripts in the fonts I use fontaine command on the binary font file.
Regards,
Parag.