Package Details: ttf-ms-fonts 2.0-10

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/ttf-ms-fonts.git (read-only)
Package Base: ttf-ms-fonts
Description: Core TTF Fonts from Microsoft
Upstream URL: http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/
Keywords: corefonts
Licenses: custom:microsoft
Provides: ttf-font
Submitter: None
Maintainer: birdflesh
Last Packager: birdflesh
Votes: 1891
Popularity: 11.344211
First Submitted: 2010-12-01 11:17
Last Updated: 2017-05-10 20:28

Required by (131)

Sources (11)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 ... Next › Last »

patrakov commented on 2019-03-20 22:35

I think that the web.archive.org suggestion by nishant is a really good one. It also allows to add Tahoma32.exe and thus make the package more complete.

nishant commented on 2019-03-03 01:55

For successful download, I had to change the download path to https://web.archive.org/web/20020124085641/http://www.microsoft.com/typography/downloads

lectrode commented on 2018-10-03 19:24

For successful download, I had to change "http" to "https" for the font source urls. HTH

Win8Error commented on 2018-02-25 18:30

Build failed:

install: der Aufruf von stat für '*.ttf' ist nicht möglich: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden ==> FEHLER: Ein Fehler geschah in package(). Breche ab...

Anonymous comment on 2017-09-26 21:30

What about using the original web page as upstream webpage on the pkgbuild?
https://web.archive.org/web/20020124085641/http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fontpack/default.htm

Also Im having problems downloading from sourceforge, is possible list either in a comment on the pkgbuild another source?

Edit: I think this is why I have problems also in other networks, at this point better add a non-sourceforge mirror just in case
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/27/faulty_data_center_takes_out_sourceforge/

birdflesh commented on 2017-05-10 20:06

@srand thanks for the suggestion. Install file was removed with no version bump.

srand commented on 2017-05-10 19:39

No need for the .install file anymore, everything font-related that's done in there is handled by pacman hooks now.

beroal commented on 2016-11-30 19:34

@mgd: I can give a summary. One party in the discussion says that SHA256 is no better than MD5 because here a hash is used for error checking, not for security. So SHA256 is no better than any CRC.

mgd commented on 2016-11-30 18:05

Care to give a summary?
I can't read that bbs w/o registering beforehand (which I won't do for the sole purpose to read your link).

birdflesh commented on 2016-11-30 14:07

Respectfully, I won't be switching to SHA256.
Reasoning behind this decision can be found here:
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=217588