Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Re: [Pkg-fonts-bugs] ITP: fontforge toyfonts : collection of open font sources to experiment with FontForge
Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Nicolas Spalinger (firstname.lastname@example.org):
>> Package: wnpp
>> Severity: wishlist
>> * Package name : sfd-toyfonts-fontforge
>> Version : 0.1
>> Upstream Author : George Williams
>> * URL : http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/sfds/toyfonts.html
>> * License : Open Font License
>> Description : collection of open font sources to experiment with
>> A rich collection of FontForge SFD sources to experiment/play and learn
>> how to use FontForge, the open font editor designed by George Williams.
> Why not something like "fontforge-toyfonts" that would allow that
> sandbox package to appear close to fontforge in lists?
Good point. The order you suggest is better.
I wanted to make it clear that the font sources are available. Hey, what
better way to learn than looking at a variety of existing font sources?
I guess one item of our future font policy - as we get more fonts
uploaded and maintain the existing set - would be about consistent
naming of font packages and related software. Currently in the archive
the naming is not really all that consistent: by language, by script, by
author, by font name, by font-format, and sometimes in different orders
and with different or redundant ways of expressing the same property.
And the description sometimes makes it hard to know what the fonts
really offer, what they may need and so on.
Many maintainers have done a brilliant job, but IMHO some consistency
Something like $format-$foundry-$fontname sounds easier to navigate,
descriptions entries like coverage by language/ script, availability of
source and so on can be more acurate which at the end of the day means
searches can be made more easily and users can find what they need.
Appropriate splitting along with metapackages could make things a lot
Maybe later on we need to look at what can be done via debtags.