[Pkg-fonts-devel] package names

Nicolas Spalinger nicolas_spalinger at sil.org
Tue Apr 4 09:51:57 UTC 2017

On 04/04/2017 02:08 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Bobby de Vos wrote:
>> NRSI is preparing an update to a group of fonts called Gentium Plus.
>> Ideally, what should be the package name? I ask since the conclusion
>> will apply to some new fonts, not currently packaged in Debian.
>>  1. fonts-sil-gentium-plus
> I would go with this one, it includes the foundry and separates words
> with a dash.
> Also see our packaging policy:
> https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/rbrito-guest/fonts-policy.git/tree/fonts_policy.mdwn
> https://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-fonts/people/yosch/debian-font-packaging-policy.txt?view=markup

Mmm, Looks like these documents have not been updated in quite a while. 
And not always completely in sync with what various team members have been doing over the years. 
Probably due for a refresh IMHO.

>> The group of fonts will also include fonts called Gentium Book Plus, all
>> in one upstream tar.xz file. Should there be one source package that
>> produced two .deb files, one for Gentium Plus and the other for Gentium
>> Book Plus?
> If the binary fonts are large then that is probably useful, otherwise
> probably not.
>> Some NRSI fonts have the name of the bigger organization (SIL) as part
>> of the font name, such as Charis SIL. The Debian package for this font
>> is fonts-sil-charis. Is that a good pattern to continue (that is,
>> dropping the sil since sil is the foundry name, or should the package
>> ideally be called fonts-sil-charissil)? These conclusions will help me
>> package newer fonts to be consistent with Debian.
> For fonts, the Debian package names have no particular significance
> wrt mapping between font names and packages so it doesn't matter much.
> Dropping the second foundry name does make the package name more
> aesthetically pleasing and less likely to annoy repetition pedants.

How about dropping the first foundry name:  fonts-$fullfontname instead? 

How does that sound? 



More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list