ports/182862: x11-fonts/croscorefonts-fonts-ttf : add some more fonts.

[giffunip at tutopia.com]

The following reply was made to PR ports/182862; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: <giffunip at tutopia.com>
To: Raphael Kubo da Costa <rakuco at FreeBSD.org>
Cc: <bug-followup at FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: ports/182862: x11-fonts/croscorefonts-fonts-ttf : add some more
 fonts.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:33:16 -0500

  On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 22:14:11 +0300, Raphael Kubo da Costa 
  <rakuco at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
 > <giffunip at tutopia.com> writes:
 >
 >> On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:35:32 +0300, Raphael Kubo da Costa
 >> <rakuco at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
 >>> Since these new fonts are not part of ChromeOS's core fonts
 >>> collection
 >>> (if we can call it that way), wouldn't it make more sense to follow
 >>> upstream and have a separate port for ChromeOS extra fonts?
 >>
 >> To be honest, I am not sure if we can/should clasify them in the 
 >> same
 >> package.
 >> They do share in common that they are metric-compatible to MS fonts
 >> and they
 >> are in the same site.
 >>
 >> FWIW, this looks like the homesite for the Google collection:
 >>
 >> https://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/
 >
 > My opinion isn't really worth anything here, but I'd rather separate
 > croscorefonts from crosextrafonts as upstream does, but not go as far 
 > as
 > separate crosextrafonts from crosextrafonts-carlito (which upstream
 > does for some weird reason):
 >
 > 
 > https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/overlays/chromiumos-overlay/+/master/media-fonts/
 
  The reason is the licensing Carlito is (weak) copyleft while the
  rest of the fonts are ALv2. for the ChromOS guys the distinction
  may be important.
 
  I would just prefer to install all the MS-compatible fonts in one
  package instead of hunting them down all over the tree. My opinion
  doesn't really matter either though, all I care about is that upstream
  OpenOffice already recognizes the equivalences so we should ship them.
 
  Pedro.