Hi Julian, this is highly appreciated, thanks for all the effort you put into this! I'd recommend to avoid the "awesome" part of the name altogether. Font Awesome upstream apparently changed his mind and had become rather hostile towards open development, so we shouldn't give them more reason to feel under attack. How about "font-dfsgsome" or "font-handsome" or whatever wordplay you like? - Fabian Von meinem/meiner Galaxy gesendet -------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -------- Von: Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> Datum: 29.01.23 13:21 (GMT+01:00) An: Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> Cc: 902981@bugs.debian.org, Bastian Germann <bage@debian.org> Betreff: Bug#902981: Font Awesome v5 in Debian > Quoting Julian Gilbey (2023-01-29 12:03:30) > > If you would like me to go ahead and work on this, please say. > > Sure I would like you to go ahead - why would I not want that? > > Sounds like a fun project, and Free, and beneficial to Debian. Great! > One thing you might consider is to name the resulting package something > (similar but) different than fontawesome, to not upset upstream > developers by hijacking their name for something arguably different. A good point. I was thinking of creating a GitHub project called FontAwesome-DFSG, with a README explaining what is it, how it was created and how it is not endorsed by the FontAwesome "owners". But I'm not sure what to call the Debian package - it is essentially just a repackaging of the FontAwesome fonts. Perhaps we could call the source package fonts-font-awesome-dfsg, and the binary packages fonts-font-awesome-4.7, fonts-font-awesome-dfsg-5, fonts-font-awesome-dfsg-6 and fonts-font-awesome-dfsg (for the current version of the upstream font)? I'm open to ideas! Best wishes, Julian |