From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Add Anonymous Pro fonts Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 17:57:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20150905155745.GA14758@debian> References: <878u8luh1b.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39925) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZYFqk-0000bB-B8 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2015 11:57:55 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZYFqh-0001za-3C for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2015 11:57:54 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.13]:59184) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZYFqg-0001zD-RG for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2015 11:57:51 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878u8luh1b.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Alex Kost Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 04:33:52PM +0300, Alex Kost wrote: > I would also name it 'font-anonymous-pro', but I have problems with > naming font packages. Andreas (the author of those naming guidelines) > should know better. Not really - I just formulated the consensus that had formed on the list. I would say that there is no obligation to include the name of the foundry (but it could give useful information in case more fonts from the same foundry are added, and would be needed if the same font name were used by different foundries). So I also think that font-anonymous-pro would be fine, or font-marksimonson-anonymous-pro, at your choice. Andreas