Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] RFC: Planning an Intial Font Policy (was: Re: [Pkg-fonts-bugs] ITP: ttf-sil-gentium-plus: extended Unicode smart font family for Latin/Greek/Cyrillic)
- To: pkg-fonts-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
- Subject: Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] RFC: Planning an Intial Font Policy (was: Re: [Pkg-fonts-bugs] ITP: ttf-sil-gentium-plus: extended Unicode smart font family for Latin/Greek/Cyrillic)
- From: Christian PERRIER <bubulle@debian.org>
- Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 07:09:16 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20101201060915.GY8811@mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org>
- In-reply-to: <AANLkTi=hRmjWmFiv0K1+ay1E_GOQTvojpWzFWbkXw3TE@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <4CD91075.6070300@sil.org> <20101109172704.GC3397@mykerinos.kheops.frmug.org> <20101109214447.GA12918@ime.usp.br> <AANLkTi=hRmjWmFiv0K1+ay1E_GOQTvojpWzFWbkXw3TE@mail.gmail.com>
Quoting Paul Wise (pabs@debian.org):
> I wonder if the font- prefix needs to be plural when appropriate or not.
We haven't addressed that yet.
And now we have one package prefixed by font- (hosny-hamiri) and a few
ITPs prefixed by fonts- (Nicolas ones).
I don't really care but what I would strongly object against would be
using the two prefixes!
If fonts- is preferrable because most packages provide more than one
font, then fine, and we'll rename font-hosny-hamiri...but let's avois
having both in the archive.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Reply to: