Comment 3 for bug 640623

Keeping these in sync is going to be a time-consuming operation if done by manually, so I can quite understand the reluctance. I think the simplest solution might be to re-inject the desired glyphs on our side in a more pragmatic manner. The attached python script re-injects the nameID=5 version number into the 'uniEFFD' glyph slot; the same can be done for populating the font/weight. The grayscale grid has not been useful at all, so that should be dropped and hopefully replaced by a pixels-per-em readout similar to Deja Vu.

It's a proof-of-concept so It'll needs more work to cope with full-injection into a font that doesn't have the glyph slot already setup; the glyph and its name to be created, populated, given dimensions, and added coherently to the various other tables.

This is probably the simplest way to patch in any license changes as well; and have it as part of the .orig.tar.gz "upstream/package" build process.