Am Mittwoch, den 02.01.2019, 02:56 +0100 schrieb Adam Borowski: > one or both of urw-base35 or texgyre should go in, let's have it/them in Just one of them, please. I am all for alternative dependencies. It doesn't help anyone if we install two fonts that serve the same purpose and thus look nearly identical. For example, libreoffice recommends both fonts-linuxlibertine and fonts-sil-gentium-basic - and while both are without doubt high quality fonts, they may appear (excuse my words) as just the third and forth Times clone to the untrained eye. As an anecdote, when I was about to finish my dissertation, I wasn't sure if I should print it in Adobe Utopia or Bitstream Charter. So I prepared samples of both and showed them to some (non-nerdy and non font-affine) friends and family. Their replies, from all of them, were like "It's all Times, so what?!" > fonts-freefont: sure, it's a very widespread font, with 41% total popcon. > OTF version takes less space at same quality, so it's an obvious choice. Yes, although its roman glyphs are based on the same Ghostscript fonts that fonts-urw-base35 and fonts-texgyre are built upon. > Not sure if you guys would prefer going for a "core fonts" or merely > "recommended" list. The latter hits my recent use cases; the former could > be suggested to the d-i team. We are still missing some decorative fonts. I believe what people really want apart from the standard serif/sans/mono sets is pendants to e.g. Brush Script, Papyrus, Comic Sans (yep!) and Impact. Do we have any recommendable alternatives for these? - Fabian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part