[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: a "fonts-recommended" metapackage?



Am Freitag, den 08.02.2019, 15:45 +0000 schrieb Nathan Willis:
> Individual metapackages _can_ be done. I'm saying start there, build
> a meta-meta-package out of the individual building blocks once you
> have them, and you might get closer to your goal.And, as an added
> bonus, even you personally don't care at all about the individual

What you are proposing here is splitting a package that depends on e.g.
12 other packages into 4 packages each depending on 3 other packages.

Say, for example, the fonts-recommended-oscompat package (if you like
to name it so) would depend on "fonts-liberation2 | fonts-croscore,
fonts-crosextra-caladea, fonts-crosextra-carlito". That's it, folks.

Some other fonts don't even allow to get grouped like this, for example
the fonts-cantarell package. It's in the list, because some GTK3
applications only render a proper UI if this font is installed without
explicitly depending on it. This is pretty much its own category, so
should we introduce another meta-package just to pull this one in?

Or fonts-urw-base35, which contains replicas of the 35 Postscript Core
fonts, which are expected to be available on about any desktop
operating system since the 1990s (at least if you are going to render
PS or PDF files). Which category is this, which meta-package should we
put this in.

Whatever, talk is cheap! The package is maintained here:
https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-recommended

If you feel like this needs a split-up or some additional e.g. fonts-
recommended-dtp or fonts-recommended-advertising meta-packages, please
feel free to issue merge requests there.

Cheers,

 - Fabian

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: