[Pkg-fonts-devel] any idea when we will have font-anonymous-pro in debian/ubuntu

Rogério Brito rbrito at ime.usp.br
Mon Jun 20 20:46:27 UTC 2011

Hash: SHA384

Hi there Christian and others.

On 2011-06-20 01:41, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Rogério Brito (rbrito at ime.usp.br):
>>> <quote=Christian Perrier>
>>> - rename it to follow the current pkg-fonts package naming policy, so
>>> "fontS-anonymous-pro" (we're discussing about making the "foundry"
>>> part in package names an optional component and I think there is
>>> consensus that it hasn't to be mandatory)
>> Indeed. I have the very rough draft of the fonts policy at
>>     https://github.com/rbrito/fonts-policy
>> and the foundry thing is only a suggestion, not requirement.
> However, we may discuss whether it should be "fonts-anonymous-pro" or
> "fonts-anonymouspro". The latter makes it clearer that "anonymous" is
> not a foundry name..:-)

I think that a middle ground between "no foundries" and "with foundries" is to
adopt the following position:

1 - just "say no to foundries"
2 - since we don't have foundries, in case a foundry should be credited or to
avoid disabiguation, just incorporate the name of the foundry in the name of the
font and regard *that* as the name of the font.

If we adopt the naming convention above, then we can "parse" the name of the
fonts as:

* fonts-(anonymous-pro): "Anonymous Pro" is the name of the font, and
"Anonymous" is *not* the foundry.
* fonts-(paratype-sans): here, Paratype is the foundry, but since the name
"sans" is way too generic, we adopt "Paratype Sans" as the name of the font and
we are done with it.
* fonts-(urw-garamond-no8): here, URW is the foundry, but since the world is
*so* full of Garamond revivals (and no8 indicates that this is the 8th version
of Garamond that URW created), we just adopt "URW Garamond No8" as the name of
the font and no chances of ambiguities arise.

In other words, I believe that the interpretation above would be a good
compromise between the two groups of people ("with/no foundries") and, if fact,
we need no further action here.

How's that for a "lassez faire" state of things? :-)

BTW, I would love to get feedback on the idea above *and* on the state of the
draft of the policy.

Also, since we have some Canonical/Ubuntu people in this discussion, could we
join our forces and work together? I'm looking for feedback here too.

>>     http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-fonts/packages/fonts-anonymous-pro/
> Well, at some point, the VCS-of-choice has to be decided.

Sure. Even if we don't settle on anything (but having the efforts of the group
unified is nice).

> Given that
> the pkg-fonts team is using SVN (which is well suited for such simple
> packages), once we start with it, we'll go with it. Maybe in the
> future will the team switch to git but, in such case, we'll migrate
> and keep history, of course.

Sure, that's very easy (read: "I know how to do that"). :-)

> I saw your commits. Things are mostly OK, except that fonts are ony
> level too deep (in packages/fonts-anonymous-pro/fonts-anonymous-pro
> instead of packages/fonts-anonymous-pro) but that can be corrected.

Ooops. I didn't see that. It's fixed now.

>> Christian, feel free to upload it.
> Well, now it's up to me to find the time for that..:-). Will do, at
> some moment. Just need to clean out thingsz in SVN and make a final
> decision about package naming.

I think that I took care of both issues above. Please let me know if you think
that there is anything else that I should do.


- -- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/


More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list