<html> <head> <base href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/"> </head> <body> <div> <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Make font installation optional" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91886#c4">Comment # 4</a> on <a class="bz_bug_link bz_status_NEW " title="NEW - Make font installation optional" href="https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91886">bug 91886</a> from <a class="email" href="mailto:mikekaganski@hotmail.com" title="Mike Kaganski <mikekaganski@hotmail.com>"> Mike Kaganski</a> <pre>But: the fonts used in own templates must be present after installation (user uninstalling them later shoots in own leg deliberately) - these fonts missing would be a BUG - I definitely second <a href="show_bug.cgi?id=91886#c2">comment 2</a> (and not only about Impress); the fonts used in known metric-compatible substitutions must be present (this is a built-in mechanism for keeping document layout when interoperating with MSO). Maybe there are more cases where missing fonts are BUG. Currently TDF package includes all dependencies including fonts; the fonts are handled as separate sub-packages, so that distros are free to exclude them and make them separate dependencies if needed (and Debian does that). Installing fonts is normal for any application that needs them. On Windows, it's normal practice, e.g. MSO does that. Making new extension category for fonts is absolutely wrong IMO: as mentioned, font management is OS feature, and those extensions would effectively create a duplicating font management mechanism. I don't think this should be "fixed". If some of the bundled fonts are not necessary in the bundle, then inclusion of those was a mistake, and they should be dropped. But not all.</pre> </div> <hr> You are receiving this mail because: <ul> <li>You are the assignee for the bug.</li> </ul> </body> </html>