[Pkg-fonts-devel] package names

[Nicolas Spalinger]

>>>> 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.


I agree that for certain fonts it's hard to know what to pick as the foundry name:
-croscore-? -google-? -adobe-?  Especially when multiple foundries have worked on it.

We run into thorny issues there quite quickly...

I would tend to agree with simplifying that longer-term. 

-- 
Nicolas