[Pkg-fonts-devel] Font renaming/policy

Christian PERRIER bubulle at debian.org
Wed Oct 19 20:47:14 UTC 2011

Quoting Andrew Starr-Bochicchio (a.starr.b at gmail.com):

> I've of course noticed that a number of font packages have recently
> been renamed from ttf-foo to fonts-foo. As I'm an uploader of
> ttf-rufscript, I'd like to bring it up to compliance with the current
> font packaging policy. I've taken a look through the mailing list
> archive, but I don't see any straight forward summary of exactly what
> has changed. Is it simply that I should rename the package to
> fonts-rufscript with the appropriate transitional package?

More or less, yes.

> The wiki page for font packaging policy currently states in bold on
> top "This page contains obsolete items, so should be rewritten. Ask
> current situation to pkg-fonts-devel." It would be great if someone
> who has been involved with these changes could update that page.
> Perhaps there could be a package designated as a kind of reference
> implementation for font packaging policy. That way if folks don't have
> time to keep up with the wiki page, potential packagers could be
> pointed at that package.

*I* am sometimes bnot good at these thigns, particularly documenting,
sorry for that.

I would say that fonts-linuxlibertine can be taken as a good
example. Another is probably fonts-arabeyes.

> One last thing, is this transition being tracked somewhere? It seems
> like a simple enough thing that I could probably start working through
> other untransitioned packages when I get some free time.

It is not tracked anywhere (excvept in pkg-fonts SVN), TTBOMK. So,
thanks for volunteering..:-)

-------------- 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/20111019/e4892758/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list