[Pkg-fonts-devel] RFC: new fonts-libertine package available

[Rogério Brito]

Hi, Paul.

I'm including Philipp here also. If anybody else from the font project
is likely to be included, just include them.

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 14:49, Paul Sladen <paul at sladen.org> wrote:
> Gillian,
>
> Out of interest, are you happy with this renaming of the relevant
> Debian packages from 'ttf-linux-libertine' to just 'fonts-libertine'?

Just to give the upstream developers some ground. We have been having
a renaming overhaul of the names of the *packages* here in Debian, to
get a more unified approach on the maintainance, among other things.
So far, so good. Not touching anything upstream-specific.

But when it came to Linux Libertine, we had:

    http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/2011-October/008114.html
    http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/2011-October/008118.html
    http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/2011-October/008119.html

I am strongly opposed to some changes, and I asked about
clarifications regarding to what extent those changes would be taken:

    http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/2011-October/008120.html

to which I received Christian's reply saying:

    http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/2011-October/008150.html

which proposes one change that would cause breakage:

    > > * We can alias the family "Linux Biolinum" to "Linux Biolinum
O", as we are
    > >   now shipping OpenType fonts.
    >
    > We could even alias it to "Biolinum". Similarly, it could be installed
    > in /usr/share/fonts/truetype/biolinum (not sure about
    > /usr/share/fonts/opentype...that might be another transition we need).

To that, I responded:

    http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/2011-October/008155.html
    http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/2011-October/008163.html

I the last e-mail, I wrote:

    > Anyway #2, if it is just the package name being changed, then it
won't harm
    > much (except cause confusion). OTOH, changing the font naming (either via
    > changing the fonts *or* creating fontconfig aliases) is a big no no.

Also, in that e-mail, I said that I lacked to courage to ask upstream
to change their product name for a frivolous reason of not fitting our
distribution and got responses that I should have mailed you, despite
my lack of courage. There was one person (Khaled Hosny) that responded
saying that he also saw the change as an "unreasonable request" to
upstream:

    http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/2011-October/008165.html
    http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/2011-October/008168.html

As an aside, it's not too much of a surprise that I agree with Khaled
in many points, as I know where he comes from, especially from an
artistic point of view.

Continuing with the thread, Christian then replied with a totally
peaceful (this is one of the things that I like about Christian and
Bdale Garbee, BTW) proposal of keeping the package name as
fonts-linuxlibertine.

I had not seen that reply and prepared a package with the name
fonts-libertine, which contained the following commit expressing that
I was acting against my will.

    http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-fonts?view=revision&revision=4019

This was the commit that Christian told that he didn't like and I
didn't like to have to write it also.

The way that I see things, there will not be many other progresses in
the Debian Fonts team regarding Linux Libertine, as we are waiting for
your (upstream) view on this discussion.



Regards.

P.S.: I almost wrote "<censored> Libertine" above, putting a remark
that that was a joke with all this much-ado-about-nothing, but moved
it here, for fear that humor-impaired people would not get the fun...
:)

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://rb.doesntexist.org : Packages for LaTeX : algorithms.berlios.de
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br