[Pkg-fonts-devel] Package naming preference for non-ttf formats (eg. PSF)

[Christian PERRIER]

Quoting Paul Sladen (pkg-fonts at paul.sladen.org):
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
> > I think I would be putting all the formats in one package, or using
> > fonts-[foundry]-fontname-console.
> 
> I've uploaded a bump of 'ubuntu-font-family-sources' Source with the
> console-font building code uncommented[0][1]:
> 
>   $ dpkg -L fonts-ubuntu-font-family-console  | grep psf
>   /usr/share/consolefonts/UbuntuMono-R-8x16.psf
>   /usr/share/consolefonts/UbuntuMono-BI-8x16.psf
>   /usr/share/consolefonts/UbuntuMono-B-8x16.psf
>   /usr/share/consolefonts/UbuntuMono-RI-8x16.psf
> 
> This second binary is in addition to the current main
> 'ttf-ubuntu-font-family' binary.  I would be grateful for advice about
> what would be the best name for a renamed main binary package.


Hmm, that seems tricky.

I'm personnally nnot entirely happy with
fonts-ubuntu-font-family-whatever. It seems weird to repeat "font" in
the pkg name and "family" is not exactly a font name.

Indeed, how about simply "fonts-ubuntu" for the package providing the
TTF|OTF fonts and fonts-ubuntu-console for the package providing the
console fonts. Is there a chance that there is a
fonts-ubuntu-somethingelse for another font family provided by the
"ubuntu" foundry?

CC'ing you, Paul though I'm unsure this is needed as you're probably
subscribed to the LP bug.


-------------- 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/20111125/fbaa639b/attachment.pgp>