Dear Maintainer,

fonts-nato has many fonts in one package. Many users do not use the font
of all. I think the user use only part of the font that is provided in package.
Please split package for each fonts.

Best regards,
  Nobuhiro

Quoting Vasudev Kamath (2014-08-04 05:30:53) [at Bug#754926]
it makes good sense to me to continue redistribute in Debian as a single
source package as we do now.

If additionally the size of the bundle becomes 400+MB then it makes good
sense to me to split into multiple binary packages.

If, however, the upstream really is a bundling of sources actually
developed elsewhere, then preferrably we should track those other
sources directly - and eventually (if there is any benefit for Debian in
doing so) keep the fonts-noto package as a metapackage pulling in all
those other packages which together becomes same as what Google calls
the "noto" bundle of fonts.

In other words: I see no need to wait for upstream to split into
multiple sub-parts - upstream may not have same needs as Debian for
separation.


 - Jonas

From Chang's description CJK variant itself is 400+MB and till now it
was not merged into noto, But Chang's patch to merge it into main
tarball has been accepted so not sure how large that will make
resulting fonts-noto tarball.

I don't think its done else where, every thing is done by Google
itself but again I'm not completely sure I stopped monitoring the
project for a while now. May be some one who is following the project
closely can enlighten us.

And regarding creating fonts-noto as meta package also sounds Good.

Well you are right :) I wanted to wait only because I was bit lazy ;-)

I also support the split. Please split the fonts into their own
packages.

There is a duplicate bug about this:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=983291

Am 26.12.2021 um 14:35 teilte Amr Ibrahim mit:

Hi,
I'm too interested in a package split. Here at TeX Live packaging we get
a lot lintian warnings like:

W: texlive-fonts-extra: duplicate-font-file also in (fonts-noto-extra)
[usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/truetype/google/noto/NotoSansMono-SemiBold.ttf]
W: texlive-fonts-extra: duplicate-font-file also in (fonts-noto-extra)
[usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/truetype/google/noto/NotoSansMono-Thin.ttf]

Therefore we declare a dep on these packages and replace it by a
reference (soft link) to the file. For fonts-noto-extra does not work
out: replacing 20MB files in a package by a dep on a > 300MB package is
not really an option.

+1

Hilmar

Quoting Amr Ibrahim (2021-12-26 14:35:27)

No, bug#983291 is about font *selection* being painful, whereas this is
about font *installation* being painful.

For the record, my plan is to provide binary script-specific *-core and
*-extra packages corresponding with each upstream source package, and
let binary metapackages fonts-noto and fonts-noto-core depend on those
to effectively behave same as now.

Therefore, do *not* expect fonts-noto-core to be any lighter.  After
all, the very main purpose of the Noto font is to have "no tofu", not to
please only e.g. latin-script-users.


 - Jonas

Hello everyone,

I would like to renew interest in migrating the Noto fonts to the new
GitHub upstream sources and splitting the packages as necessary.

https://notofonts.github.io/

https://github.com/notofonts

As each font now has its own GitHub repository, they can be built from the
source code and updated to the latest Git snapshot. The best time to start
this migration would be shortly after the release of Debian 13.

Best,
Amr

[Please do not cross-post]
[Please reply *only* to 1041312@bugs.debian.org]

Quoting Amr Ibrahim (2025-07-11 18:03:16)

Yes, it is still my plan to restructure the fonts-noto packaging now
after the release of Debian 13.

Please do not cross-post. Please reply to this email *only* to the
address 1041312@bugs.debian.org to limit the noise on other bugreports.

 - Jonas