On 05/05/2011 11:40 AM, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Am 04.05.2011 22:28, schrieb Paul Wise: >> I personally think the foundry should not be present at all unless >> there are multiple packages with the same name (ala netcat-traditional >> / netcat-openbsd). > > I think it is convenient if you have a collection of fonts from the same > foundry and you would like to identify them all at once, e.g. bacause > you consider all of them of general high/low quality. I tend to lean towards pabs's perspective here. There could be foundries whose work varies, and some fonts are higher/lower quality in the same foundry. The package name isn't the place to indicate that (though of course a meta-package for all fonts from a given foundry should include the foundry name in the package name). Including the foundry in the Description (short or long) will mean that people can search for it. I don't see what we gain from having it in the package name itself, except for cases of disambiguation. my $0.02, --dkg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature