[Pkg-fonts-devel] Lintian error with new font package name convention

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On 02/10/2011 02:38 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Kahn Gillmor (dkg at fifthhorseman.net):
>> On 02/09/2011 12:40 PM, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm packaging the following font package
>>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=571723
>>>
>>> As per my previous mail to the list I'm using new font name convention
>>> (fonts-<foundry>-name). But I'm getting lintian error on the new font
>>> package naming convention. Lintian is suggesting me to use ttf-* otf-*
>>> format. How I can I suppress/override the lintian warnings?
>>>
>>> Here is part of lintian warning
>>>
>>> I: fonts-johnsmith-induni: font-in-non-font-package
>>> usr/share/fonts/opentype/fonts-johnsmith-induni/IndUni-C/IndUni-C-Bold.otf
>>
>>
>> i'd say the right thing to do is to fix lintian to the new package
>> naming convention.
>>
>> Could you file a bug report against lintian, pointing to the new fonts
>> package naming policy?  I don't know where that is.
> 
> Ahem. Nowhere? :-)
> 
> This has been discussed in the pkg-fonts team, but no policy has been
> written as of now (or no update of existing policy, if there's one,
> which I'm unsure about).

I haven't been able to find any reference to a policy document currently
outlining the naming conventions for font packages, but i might not be
looking in the right places.

Sounds like we should at least be updating the page that Vasudev pointed to:

  https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy

Maybe it's worth someone taking 20 minutes to write up a draft of the
naming conventions as they are understood from recent discussion?  I
think https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/ would be a good place to start for
that draft.

As someone who only packages a single font as a sort of sideline (fonts
are not my main focus) I would find it really useful if someone with
more skill/knowledge would document the current expectations for fonts
so i could comply with them.

I don't think this needs to go any formal DEP-style route if there is no
controversy on the pkg-fonts-devel team.  Let's just write up the
consensus on the wiki and move forward.

Thanks,

	--dkg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1030 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20110210/32fb6d70/attachment.pgp>