#786971 fonts-roboto: build from source, new upstream

Package:
fonts-roboto
Source:
fonts-roboto
Submitter:
Paul Wise
Date:
2026-02-23 09:27:03 UTC
Severity:
wishlist
#786971#5
Date:
2015-05-27 09:58:53 UTC
From:
To:
It would be nice if fonts-roboto could be built from source now that
Google actually made Roboto open source and released source/build stuff:

http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2015/05/roboto-googles-signature-font-is-now.html
https://github.com/google/roboto/
#786971#10
Date:
2015-06-01 06:58:34 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Paul,

Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:

Currently fonts-roboto is part of fonts-android using separate upstream
means splitting roboto out of fonts-android source and make separate
package.

Is that a okay solution?.. or do you have any other suggestion?
#786971#15
Date:
2015-06-01 07:07:21 UTC
From:
To:
Obviously splitting fonts-roboto into a new fonts-roboto source package
is the correct thing to do as fonts-android is just an amalgamation of
prebuilt fonts and fonts-roboto is now a proper Free Software font.
#786971#20
Date:
2017-01-03 23:33:50 UTC
From:
To:
It might be worth noting that prebuilt fonts now exist on the Roboto github
page: https://github.com/google/roboto/releases

Roboto is constantly being updated with fixes, so if you ever feel inspired
to update the Debian package this could make maintenance easier (just using
the contents of roboto-hinted.zip and roboto-unhinted.zip should suffice).

James
#786971#25
Date:
2017-01-04 01:18:43 UTC
From:
To:
Shipping prebuilt fonts (or other files) is usually an unacceptable
DFSG-violation, we need to build them from source using open source
build tools.
#786971#30
Date:
2017-01-04 01:41:46 UTC
From:
To:
Well, I suppose that makes sense since there is the option to build the
fonts. However I must point out that having sources for fonts is unusual
(probably because the distinction between source and binary is less clear
than with software), but that doesn't prevent other appropriately licensed
fonts from inclusion in Debian.
#786971#35
Date:
2017-01-04 03:08:51 UTC
From:
To:
Binary font formats like TrueType and OpenType can either be font
source or not font source, depending on how the upstream font
designers are working on their fonts. If they just open the
TTF/OTF/etc in their font editor, make changes and save, then the
TTF/OTF/etc are source. In any other cases the TTF/OTF/etc probably
are not source. In the case of Roboto there is clear evidence that the
TTF/OTF/etc files are not font source so we have to ship the source
and build the TTF/OTF/etc. There are a number of fonts in Debian with
non-binary source forms, see for example anything that Build-Depends
on fontforge. For TTF/OTF/etc fonts in Debian there is either evidence
that upstream edits binary source forms, no evidence of other source
forms or more likely, no-one has asked upstream how they develop their
fonts. If you are aware of any particular fonts that should be built
from source but aren't, please do file bug reports on the
corresponding Debian packages.

If you are involved in the upstream font development community (I
guess you are?), please encourage these practices:

Develop fonts in a VCS such as git using non-binary non-proprietary
source formats.

Don't commit any generated files to git, use an automated build system
and attach the build products to github releases/tags when using
github.

Develop fonts using Free Software build/edit tools and formats
accessible to them and avoid proprietary tools and formats like
Glyphsapp.
#786971#40
Date:
2026-02-23 09:25:30 UTC
From:
To:
In the meantime, it has moved to
https://github.com/googlefonts/roboto-2, became obsolete one more time
and finally settled under
https://github.com/googlefonts/roboto-3-classic repository.