On Fri, 2020-11-20 at 03:14 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: For fonts where large coverage is a priority I think we should ideally list explicitly all languages that are _fully_ covered. Fonts covering more languages than reasonable to list in a package description should then be split into one package per (large coverage) language group. I guess that works in the cases where the font files themselves are already split up into language groups, but does that happen often? For large lists of languages, perhaps joining them into one paragraph rather than one per line would be a good idea to save space but still allow for searches to work. Because someone interested in displaying glyphs for a specific language is not really helped to be informed that "lots of lanugages are covered" and only slightly better to know that "languages in your language family is covered". This is reminding me of Fedora's work on adding font name, language and script metadata to their package manager, so something like this works: rpm install "font:name:Jetbrains Mono" font:language:dk IIRC appstream is what that morphed into and it looks like the Debian appstream metadata contains per-locale coverage information as well as font names for each font package in Debian. I'm not sure how to use appstreamcli to find a font using this data though. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part