Quoting Paul Sladen (paul@sladen.org): > On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Rogério Brito wrote: > > finishing touches on linux-libertine. > > installation/upgrade from existing ttf-linux-libertine packages. > > Here is the dsc file for those that want to see the state of the package: > > dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/f/fonts-libertine/fonts-libertine_5.1.3-1.dsc > > Gillian, > > Out of interest, are you happy with this renaming of the relevant > Debian packages from 'ttf-linux-libertine' to just 'fonts-libertine'? There has been a discussion on the pkg-fonts-devel mailing list about the package naming. The naming policy we adopted until now is fonts-<foundry>-<fontname>. So, we are in the process of slowly renaming packages (both binary and sources) to fit that policy. My opinion is that "linux" is certainly not a foundry. So, my first proposal was indeed "fonts-libertine" based on the fact that upstream is not that clear about the project's name (I read mentions of "Libertine Open Font Project"). Also based on the fact that "linux" makes no point here. This font is certainly not meant to be used on Linux systems only. There have been arguments, though, that "Linux Libertine" is the font name as chosen by upstream (definitely the internal font name). We certainly have to respect that and, unless there is a sign from upstream that renaming the (imho) improperly named font, we just prefer renaming the package but (I have to repeat this dozens of times) not the font itself. The discussion was maybe converging towards a proposal I made to name the package "fonts-linuxlibertine": it keeps the original upstream intent without turning "linux" into a foundry. However, Rogério committed changes to fonts-libertine in the meantime, with a commit message....which I dislike (talking about bikeshedding, etc.). I am currently not ready to upload the package as is, at least until the discussion about package naming has been completed.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature