[Debian-in-workers] Changes to Font package names and OpenOffice hyphenation package names

[Christian PERRIER]

Quoting Vasudev Kamath (kamathvasudev at gmail.com):

> Also I had asked for help in pkg-fonts on packaging this ITP
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=571723 the package
> name was ttf-induni I was told by Christian PERRIER that the font
> packages should be named as fonts-<foundry>-name where foundry is
> either author or the company which created the font. So  I renamed the
> ITP to have name fonts-jhonsmith-induni. The conversation in pkg-fonts
                         ^^^^^^^^^
                         Assuming that the author name is John Smith,
                         I suspect there might be a typo here...

> can be found here
>  http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/2011-January/006000.html
> So I think the ttf-indic-fonts (all indian fonts) should also be
> renamed to have the above name format.


Agreed. However, the pkg-fonts policy might be harder to follow here,
as ttf-indic-fonts is a collection of many fonts from many different
origins.

Indeed, the current "policy" of the Fonts packaging team is well
adapted to simple packages where one source package provides only one
binary package for fonts (eventually two, if one includes the udeb
needed by D-I for seom packages).

In the case of ttf-indic-fonts, the source package could be renamed as
fonts-indic....and discussion should happen for the various binary
packages it provides, particularly those that provide fonts from
various origins. Even so, would it make sense to keep the script name
in the fonts  package name...that's an interesting thing to discuss.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-in-workers/attachments/20110207/f71c2721/attachment.pgp>