On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:47:25PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > On Mon, 09 Nov 2015 22:33:39 +0000, Daniel Glassey wrote: > > > > > > I'm planning to package libfont-ttf-scripts-perl based on the existing > > > > > packaging used in > > > > > https://launchpad.net/~silnrsi/+archive/ubuntu/smith > [..] > > > Reviewed and some TODOs added (this time more than in > > > libtext-unicode-equivalents-perl :)) to d/changelog. > > Thanks. I think I've got most of those sorted now. > > A couple of things to sort out (as long as the rest is ok!) > > This looks good, thanks. > For the patches I suggest to add a few more headers (DEP3), > especially the URLs of the upstream bugs. Done. > > > I hope the files installed into /usr/bin don't clash with anything, they > > > all sound a bit generic > > The installed scripts (addfont and addpath aren't installed) are: > > add_classes, check_attach, dumpfont, fret, hackos2, make_fea, make_gdl, > > make_volt, psfix, sfd2ap, sfdmeld, sfdmerge, ttf2volt, ttf2woff, ttfascent, > > ttfbboxfix, ttfbuilder, ttfdeflang, ttfeval, ttffeatparms, ttflang2tuner, > > ttfname, ttfremap, ttfsetver, ttfsubset, ttftable, > > typetuner, volt2ap, volt2ttf > > > > I've checked and those don't match the name of files in sid (searching on > > packages.d.o). > > That's good. > > > add_classes, check_attach, psfix are the ones that sound generic to me. > > Would it be worth it to rename them even if they don't currently clash? > > Though that would mess up any system that expects to call them. > > Right, that's the problem. > TBH, I'm a bit ambivalent -- what do others think? Any opinions anyone? Should I ask on debian-devel@lists.d.o for more general opinions? Thanks, Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature