Hi Fabian, On 09:56 Thu 22 Aug , Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Hey Vasudev, > > Am Donnerstag, den 22.08.2013, 11:39 +0530 schrieb Vasudev Kamath: > > 1. Source package named in same way as upstream > > 2. Only binary package will be named to have fonts- prefix > > I am against this for two reasons: > > 1) Upstream names may vary greatly. For the font at hand the upstream > tarball is even called ttf-arkpandora, which is the exact name that we > decided against in the font package naming policy. Following upstreams > potentially random naming decisions would negotiate the *ordering* of > binary package names - that we aimed for by introducing the font package > naming policy - on the source package level. > > 2) For source packages that only build one binary package, I generally > consider it best practise that both have the same name. Since we already > have a policy for the name of the binary package, IMHO the source > package name should be made to follow. Done I think we can clarify this in the font package naming policy. Btw is it there some where on wiki.d.o? > > > I'm okay with last 2 changes but not the changes related to CDBS I > > will fix this myself. Also if you see having same name as upstream > > name for source package I'm okay with your changes. > > I agree packaging style is a personal choice. If you fixed the typo in > copyright and the installation of the fontconfig file, I'll be > satisfied. ;) > > > Sorry for late reply as I was travelling and was not having internet connection. > > Never mind, nice to hear from you! All other issues fixed and package pushed repo. Love to see if there is any other improvement suggestions from your side. Cheers, -- Vasudev Kamath http://copyninja.info Connect on ~friendica: copyninja@{frndk.de | vasudev.homelinux.net} IRC nick: copyninja | vasudev {irc.oftc.net | irc.freenode.net} GPG Key: C517 C25D E408 759D 98A4 C96B 6C8F 74AE 8770 0B7E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature