Re: Bug#156852: ITP: ttf-dustismo -- general purpose gpl'ed truetype sans serif font
> Ben Armstrong said the following in the thread above called "Linux
> Fonts":
>
> "I question the name free-ttfonts. The convention seems to be:
>
> ttf[-foundryname]-fontorfamilyname"
I think I know why this conventon developed for true-type fonts:
joey@dragon:~/debian>grep-available -F Package ttf- -s Package,Installed-Size | grep Installed-Size
Installed-Size: 1512
Installed-Size: 2424
Installed-Size: 5948
Installed-Size: 3830
Installed-Size: 12484
Installed-Size: 2704
Installed-Size: 1300
Installed-Size: 28534
Installed-Size: 4660
Installed-Size: 960
Installed-Size: 5204
Installed-Size: 4244
Installed-Size: 10308
(The 960 is a false positive; libttf-dev).
All of these packages are quite large, probably because they're all mostly
languages with large complex character sets such as asian languages.
That doesn't mean we have to mindlessly stick to it when packaging a 100k
font though. We also have the example of freefont, which used uner 3 mb for
79 smaller type 1 fonts.
> > Note the existing freefont and sharefont packages, which were compiled
> > by a Debian developer. Why should truetype fonts be packaged any
> > differently?
> >
>
> I don't think they should. My original intent was to make a
> free-ttffont package, and I'd rather do that.
That makes sense to me.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: