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

Christian PERRIER bubulle at debian.org
Tue Jun 21 05:14:20 UTC 2011

Quoting shirish शिरीष (shirishag75 at gmail.com):

> >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) .

Not "type", but always "fonts", whatever type of font we have (ttf,
otf, etc.). The font type (which is now most often TrueType or
OpenType) is indeed not really relevant for users.

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

No, with "fonts"....even simpler..:-)

So, yes, that means renaming font packages, which is currently being
done as long as they are rebuilt for other reasons. Renaming source
and binary packages is not that simple so we'll avoid to do it for
futile reasons. So, this is a process that will last for quite some time.

> 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 ?

Yes, it is..:-). Once a package name is chosen, it becomes hard to
change, so better choose it right at first glance.

> <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.

IIRC, there is an ITP (Intent To Package) or RFP (Request For
Packaging) bug report. You can check bugs reported against the "wnpp"
package (http://bugs.debian.org/wnpp).

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20110621/edb47e7f/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list