Quoting Andrew Starr-Bochicchio (a.starr.b@gmail.com): > I've of course noticed that a number of font packages have recently > been renamed from ttf-foo to fonts-foo. As I'm an uploader of > ttf-rufscript, I'd like to bring it up to compliance with the current > font packaging policy. I've taken a look through the mailing list > archive, but I don't see any straight forward summary of exactly what > has changed. Is it simply that I should rename the package to > fonts-rufscript with the appropriate transitional package? More or less, yes. > The wiki page for font packaging policy currently states in bold on > top "This page contains obsolete items, so should be rewritten. Ask > current situation to pkg-fonts-devel." It would be great if someone > who has been involved with these changes could update that page. > Perhaps there could be a package designated as a kind of reference > implementation for font packaging policy. That way if folks don't have > time to keep up with the wiki page, potential packagers could be > pointed at that package. *I* am sometimes bnot good at these thigns, particularly documenting, sorry for that. I would say that fonts-linuxlibertine can be taken as a good example. Another is probably fonts-arabeyes. > One last thing, is this transition being tracked somewhere? It seems > like a simple enough thing that I could probably start working through > other untransitioned packages when I get some free time. It is not tracked anywhere (excvept in pkg-fonts SVN), TTBOMK. So, thanks for volunteering..:-)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature