Quoting Nicolas Spalinger (2017-04-04 11:51:57) > On 04/04/2017 02:08 AM, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Bobby de Vos wrote: > > > >> NRSI is preparing an update to a group of fonts called Gentium Plus. > >> Ideally, what should be the package name? I ask since the conclusion > >> will apply to some new fonts, not currently packaged in Debian. > >> > >> 1. fonts-sil-gentium-plus > > > > I would go with this one, it includes the foundry and separates words > > with a dash. > > > > Also see our packaging policy: > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy > > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/rbrito-guest/fonts-policy.git/tree/fonts_policy.mdwn > > https://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/pkg-fonts/people/yosch/debian-font-packaging-policy.txt?view=markup > > Mmm, Looks like these documents have not been updated in quite a while. > And not always completely in sync with what various team members have been doing over the years. > Probably due for a refresh IMHO. > > >> The group of fonts will also include fonts called Gentium Book Plus, all > >> in one upstream tar.xz file. Should there be one source package that > >> produced two .deb files, one for Gentium Plus and the other for Gentium > >> Book Plus? > > > > If the binary fonts are large then that is probably useful, otherwise > > probably not. > > > >> Some NRSI fonts have the name of the bigger organization (SIL) as part > >> of the font name, such as Charis SIL. The Debian package for this font > >> is fonts-sil-charis. Is that a good pattern to continue (that is, > >> dropping the sil since sil is the foundry name, or should the package > >> ideally be called fonts-sil-charissil)? These conclusions will help me > >> package newer fonts to be consistent with Debian. > > > > For fonts, the Debian package names have no particular significance > > wrt mapping between font names and packages so it doesn't matter much. > > Dropping the second foundry name does make the package name more > > aesthetically pleasing and less likely to annoy repetition pedants. > > > How about dropping the first foundry name: fonts-$fullfontname instead? > > How does that sound? I prefer a naming scheme of "fonts-$name" over "fonts-$foundry-$name". I prefer that we _not_ include foundry in package name - i.e. that we use these schemes by default: * fonts-$superfamily * fonts-$family * fonts-$name I.e. for a font including the foundry as part of the name but not its familiy name, use family name in package name, and for a collection of font families sharing a basename (e.g. Noto) use that "superfamily" name in package name. It might make sense to add suffix to package names, e.g. to provide both Postscript and Truetype variants of a font which cannot coexist on the system due to name clash. I suspect there is no name clash invovled with the foundry, though. Some font packages currently provide a collection of fonts unrelated in their names and family names. I would prefer that we clean that up by splitting into multiple packages, but I expect some in the team to disagree with that being sensible. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature