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

[Christian PERRIER]

Quoting Daniel Kahn Gillmor (dkg at fifthhorseman.net):

> >> 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).

There's also a bit of history in this, particularly when it comes at
SIL-endorsed fonts and thus, as a conservative person, I was tempted
to follow the direction set by this family of fonts.

As a compromise, we could leave this up to the maintainer. So, the
"foundry" component thus becomes an even more optional component of the
package name with a mention along the lines of "the package name may
contain the foundry name following "fonts" and prefixing the font
name. This should be considered only when there is a need to make it
clear that fonts belong to a same "family" or origin.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20110506/05dab07d/attachment.pgp>