"Larson, Timothy E." <TELarson%west.com@localhost> writes: > The actual case is wip/classic-mac-font-pack which I've been working > on for a little while now. It's a collection of fonts from disparate > sources. (Thus far I'd been working on the technical aspects, not > license concerns.) Recently I found urbanrenewal-ttf, which is a > natural fit here, and since it is already a set on its own I packaged > it. Now the thought of how to get the various licenses to "play nice" > has come to the forefront. > > I was hoping to avoid, if at all possible, having to package each font > separately. But due to license issues, I am not seeing any way around > it. CMFP will have to be a meta-package. Separate packages are nice because when you add a license to DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES, you can just add a new package. classic-mac-fonts is currently set to generic-nonlicense, which is a hint that the licensing is a mess. I would suggest that you package fonts separately (or rather, into groups of fonts with the same upstream and the same license). It seems some are PD and for those we can have binary packages. It may be that you can hoist common code to a mk fragment, so that font packages can be very simple. But I suspect all the work is in unpacking the distfiles and choosing what to install, and so that wouldn't help. I realize this is a pain, but font collections seem to be trouble. If there were an upstream distfile under a free license, that would make things easier.
Attachment:
pgpQTSdLZcSwz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d
_______________________________________________ pkgsrc-wip-discuss mailing list pkgsrc-wip-discuss%lists.sourceforge.net@localhost https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pkgsrc-wip-discuss