On 02/10/2011 02:38 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote: > Quoting Daniel Kahn Gillmor (dkg@fifthhorseman.net): >> On 02/09/2011 12:40 PM, Vasudev Kamath wrote: >>> Hi, >>> I'm packaging the following font package >>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=571723 >>> >>> As per my previous mail to the list I'm using new font name convention >>> (fonts-<foundry>-name). But I'm getting lintian error on the new font >>> package naming convention. Lintian is suggesting me to use ttf-* otf-* >>> format. How I can I suppress/override the lintian warnings? >>> >>> Here is part of lintian warning >>> >>> I: fonts-johnsmith-induni: font-in-non-font-package >>> usr/share/fonts/opentype/fonts-johnsmith-induni/IndUni-C/IndUni-C-Bold.otf >> >> >> i'd say the right thing to do is to fix lintian to the new package >> naming convention. >> >> Could you file a bug report against lintian, pointing to the new fonts >> package naming policy? I don't know where that is. > > Ahem. Nowhere? :-) > > This has been discussed in the pkg-fonts team, but no policy has been > written as of now (or no update of existing policy, if there's one, > which I'm unsure about). I haven't been able to find any reference to a policy document currently outlining the naming conventions for font packages, but i might not be looking in the right places. Sounds like we should at least be updating the page that Vasudev pointed to: https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy Maybe it's worth someone taking 20 minutes to write up a draft of the naming conventions as they are understood from recent discussion? I think https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/ would be a good place to start for that draft. As someone who only packages a single font as a sort of sideline (fonts are not my main focus) I would find it really useful if someone with more skill/knowledge would document the current expectations for fonts so i could comply with them. I don't think this needs to go any formal DEP-style route if there is no controversy on the pkg-fonts-devel team. Let's just write up the consensus on the wiki and move forward. Thanks, --dkg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature