Re: Font package naming convention

[Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>]

Andreas Enge (2014-11-01 12:45 +0300) wrote:

> Alex,
>
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 12:36:30PM +0300, Alex Kost wrote:
>> I think the majority should decide.  So if the most of guix people think
>> that it should be named "bar", then let it be so.
>
> for this we would need an "infrastructure": a social contract, a voting
> system and what else not, which seems a bit like overkill to decide on package
> names. Even debian does not hold general resolutions for the names of their
> packages...

I don't see a need in the infrastructure: there is guix-devel ML and
there are only few people who is doing the most of work: you, Ludovic,
Mark, Eric, Nikita, John, Cyril, David.  So a majority of you should
decide (IMO).

>> However, I still think that having the following packages would be the
>> best:
>>   ttf-bitstream-vera
>>   ttf-dejavu
>>   ttf-freefont
>>   ttf-liberation
>>   ttf-symbola
>
> Okay, could you please formulate your suggestion into a rule that we could
> follow for other font packages than these five?

My only rule is: the upstream name shouldn't always be blindly taken as a
package name; if Guix developers think there is a more appropriate name,
then use it.