Am Dienstag, den 05.02.2019, 21:10 +0000 schrieb Nathan Willis: > I'm saying: that's five metapackages. Not one that does-everything- > possible. Having 'fonts-wordprocessing' and 'fonts-os-compatibility' > both available (etc.) is a better experience than trying to roll them > all into one. Why? Being fine-grained has never been a goal. We want one big meta- package that installs a reasonable set of fonts that serve the four (or five, whatever way you count it) most requested purposes. We want a good base set, just as any other operating system installs on the user's fresh system. > Indeed, "universally accepted" for all use-cases is what I am saying > isn't doable. Being more focused, however, with multiple > metapackages, untangles that knot. There will be many iterations, there will be fonts added and removed from this set, but in the end I believe we will end up with a package that all active font maintainers in Debian can say they do at least "suggest" (as the weaker form of "recommend") to install. But maybe not, we will see. Maybe in the end nobody cares and we maintain this meta-package nore for ourselves than anybody else... > I know that someone asking me "what fonts should I install for full > Unicode coverage" is drastically easier to answer defensibly and with > confidence than "what fonts should I use" in the abstract. Nobody asks "what fonts should I use". Maybe the question should be rephrased to "what set of fonts should I have on the system so I feel the least urge to immediately install more other fonts?". It's clear to all of us that this cannot cover the most exotic use cases but merely a common denominator for the average user. Cheers, - Fabian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part