[Pkg-fonts-devel] RFC: Getting linux-libertine modernized
nicolas_spalinger at sil.org
Mon Oct 10 09:53:19 UTC 2011
On 10/10/11 06:59, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Rogério Brito (rbrito at ime.usp.br):
> (having a small doubt that you're subscribed to the ML. I guess you
> are, but just in case, I CC you)
>> Well, first of all, let me say that I favor keeping the name that upstream
>> has chosen, for many reasons (I can elaborate on those latter), but:
>> * Is your proposal only for changing the name of the source package?
>> * Do you also intend to carry those changes for the binary package?
>> * Do you want to drop things from the font description?
> Not necessarily, but we might need to adapt it to explain that the
> font(s) is|are sometimes called "Linux" Libertine.
>> * Do you want to change the names of the fonts and how they are identified
>> to users?
> No, I think it would go too far.
> My main point here is that, besides using an irrelevant name ("Linux"
> indeed apparently "opposed" to "Microsoft"), upstream is unclear about
> the exact name of the project ("Libertine Open Font
> Project"...producing a font named "Linux Libertine" that can be used
> on anything...even in Microsoft-based environments).
> Debian is not Linux-only. We will provide these packages for the Hurd
> port and the kFreeBSD port. So, really, calling the font "Linux"
> something is not a good idea.
Just wondering if you have considered contacting the upstream authors to
make the case for them changing the name to something more neutral (and
also a name that is not trademarked by someone else). Maybe they simply
haven't given much thought to a packager's perspective when picking the
name and the scope and size of the project has grown since then, they
have added new font families etc... Apparently they are working on
Libertine Mono now.
They have a table with their existing naming conventions:
There's also a bugtracker entry related to naming items:
They are doing amazing work, no doubt about that! I think a little
friendly feedback from us would be useful.
IMHO this upstream approach would benefit Debian and the wider FLOSS
community much more than us carrying a Debian-specific branch under a
different name. I'd say that interacting with upstream is a good start
before carrying the cost of maintaining the delta of a separate branch.
Thanks a lot for your work on this !
picking up on his packaging todo a little bit...
More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel