Hi Rajeesh,
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Nicolas Spalinger nicolas_spalinger@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.