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.
The "OS compatibility" category was your idea. Now you don't like it....
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?
As has already been pointed out, this is already a dependency of packages that need it.
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.
IF you regard them as an OS compatibility choice, THEN obviously they belong in OS compatibility. But apparently you don't like that category now, so ... you're creating a contradiction yourself and labeling it an issue.
Whatever, talk is cheap!
It sure is.
Feel free to keep asking questions that have answers and then ignore the answers. Count me out of such pointless discussions.
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.
Uh-huh. Sure.