[Pkg-fonts-devel] Font packages renaming mini-HOWTO?

Daniel Kahn Gillmor dkg at fifthhorseman.net
Thu May 5 13:33:08 UTC 2011

On 05/05/2011 11:40 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Am 04.05.2011 22:28, schrieb Paul Wise:
>> I personally think the foundry should not be present at all unless
>> there are multiple packages with the same name (ala netcat-traditional
>> / netcat-openbsd).
> I think it is convenient if you have a collection of fonts from the same
> foundry and you would like to identify them all at once, e.g. bacause
> you consider all of them of general high/low quality.

I tend to lean towards pabs's perspective here.  There could be
foundries whose work varies, and some fonts are higher/lower quality in
the same foundry.  The package name isn't the place to indicate that
(though of course a meta-package for all fonts from a given foundry
should include the foundry name in the package name).

Including the foundry in the Description (short or long) will mean that
people can search for it.  I don't see what we gain from having it in
the package name itself, except for cases of disambiguation.

my $0.02,


-------------- 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/20110505/3dab147d/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list