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

Tue Jun 21 03:57:56 UTC 2011

In-line :-

2011/6/21 Rogério Brito <rbrito at ime.usp.br>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA384
>
> Hi there Christian and others.

Hi all,
> 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.

Hi all,
      As a user I have seen quite a few different naming conventions.
Few examples :-

a. otf-freefont (otf  type fonts)
b. ttf-devanagari-fonts (ttf type fonts)
c. fonts-horai-umefont (Japanese TrueType font, Ume-font)
d. xfonts-terminus (Fixed-width fonts for fast reading)
e. itrans-fonts (Extra fonts used in the ITRANS Indic text
)

The above are mere representations of the diverse nature of
naming-conventions being used in debian.

I did read the debian-fonts-policy as well

https://github.com/rbrito/fonts-policy/blob/master/fonts_policy.mdwn

>From that document it seems that somewhere in the future binary
packages would be  *type*-*name* or/and *type*-*foundry*-*name* which
I think when it would come into force would entail rebuilding some of
the other existing fonts perhaps (with conflicts to the old name) .

As a user just have to deal with 'ps', 'otf' and 'ttf'

If my understanding is correct, then it would be really welcome as it
would make things more sensible and compact.

*But* dunno if its nice/good to hold the font for the naming
policy/specification to be hashed out ?

<snipped>

On a side-note, is there a bug to have ttf-ubuntu-font-family in
debian ? If there is, would love to know about it.

> Thanks,
>
> - --
> 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
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQIbBAEBCQAGBQJN/7GXAAoJEAdHvTm8/KqqcbAP93cPIm4n0Cmjox7u6CGjSLPU
> eW3lD9z9LvgVEftLBa61VK8kkzHG/cHJhuMWu8UdLw7Nun7pXufo0F/g+3MPRsWi
> a0NDHo47oC89rUEG9oL4auEhh2QJNYnxTOtD8N5Je63LsPxwskuGJU5fYqEEKzCS
> RhDx4sQ0Fqv1qICBHI/pdlZdRbZVUg0V3XbFfoeFlSS140laXuJV+ubuZ38uKgBO
> 1yoSCjrBk2aBe3DCJouC1kxVXBwh5n8ltELO6qVdxeRAs5lwhAg0cSJhtXragzA4
> EqLf+3/mwffM3nJNrem2/Sjh2Dq9xtCYqJrfs96XEilXFBtHppmwgcZ7eaoBMQRO
> Szh0J75ceZJcqxc6kTnHyJsdlKiBDhB/Rvb9c4rmg4DYsvyN7Jut2RQMLQl3FkmT
> 7eifvDBMg8tlH4QRBuAarPwxpuB4pdTm9PYCVDt1Mgfn+eVVi6cECa1ja6bz4XTy
> zKR+LMMTaO36A4wdfOoF14VKFUkPYT63F0jxDfub9r/LF2oZT2GgQYL0RHcYO2Id
> DflmKDCpCoFj1ZEOkbfZSJ6jEd9Qt4M4lxf4c7E+SMwV+ZzrPNIMDjUtEG50ZcNF
> 2aaNb2j//8MC5U35HVYOqI07hdylF0mAMpVS+8zK7iHG8VJkWcPFc3BZ8tNWAffn
> VhPXBYTIi0yMHURKjyY=
> =vRQX
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
          Regards,
          Shirish Agarwal  शिरीष अग्रवाल
  My quotes in this email licensed under CC 3.0
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
http://flossexperiences.wordpress.com
065C 6D79 A68C E7EA 52B3  8D70 950D 53FB 729A 8B17