[Pkg-fonts-devel] package names

Jonas Smedegaard jonas at jones.dk
Tue Apr 4 14:41:26 UTC 2017

Quoting Nicolas Spalinger (2017-04-04 11:51:57)
> 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? 

I prefer a naming scheme of "fonts-$name" over "fonts-$foundry-$name".

I prefer that we _not_ include foundry in package name - i.e. that we 
use these schemes by default:

  * fonts-$superfamily
  * fonts-$family
  * fonts-$name

I.e. for a font including the foundry as part of the name but not its 
familiy name, use family name in package name, and for a collection of 
font families sharing a basename (e.g. Noto) use that "superfamily" name 
in package name.

It might make sense to add suffix to package names, e.g. to provide both 
Postscript and Truetype variants of a font which cannot coexist on the 
system due to name clash.  I suspect there is no name clash invovled 
with the foundry, though.

Some font packages currently provide a collection of fonts unrelated in 
their names and family names.  I would prefer that we clean that up by 
splitting into multiple packages, but I expect some in the team to 
disagree with that being sensible.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20170404/e0f3eda3/attachment.sig>

More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list