From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Font package naming convention Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2014 18:18:19 +0100 Message-ID: <87ioixo71g.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20141029221647.GA29707@debian> <87d29af24q.fsf@gmail.com> <20141030075640.GB27584@debian> <8738a5g1nh.fsf@gmail.com> <87ioj1sccx.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87ppd9e6ah.fsf@gmail.com> <20141030191743.GB19999@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr> <878ujxdxmj.fsf@gmail.com> <20141031175840.GA16902@debian> <87sii4q64v.fsf@gnu.org> <20141101095205.GB30939@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37556) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xkymy-00088h-AB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2014 12:18:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xkymt-0008Gc-6p for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2014 12:18:04 -0500 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([2a01:474::1]:43985) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xkyms-0008GT-OF for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Nov 2014 12:17:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141101095205.GB30939@debian> (Andreas Enge's message of "Sat, 1 Nov 2014 10:52:05 +0100") 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: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Alex Kost Andreas Enge skribis: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:30:24PM +0100, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> Furthermore, unlike software packages, what matters here is the actual >> name of the font or font collection, not the =E2=80=9Csystem name=E2=80= =9D or =E2=80=9Ctarball >> name.=E2=80=9D >> Here=E2=80=99s a possible answer to the above questions, informally: >> =E2=80=A2 Use =E2=80=98font-FOUNDRY-FAMILY=E2=80=99 or =E2=80=98font-F= AMILY=E2=80=99 or >> =E2=80=98font-FOUNDRY-COLLECTION=E2=80=99 or =E2=80=98font-COLLECTIO= N=E2=80=99 as the name. >> Examples: =E2=80=98font-bitstream-vera=E2=80=99, =E2=80=98font-liber= ation=E2=80=99, =E2=80=98font-unifont=E2=80=99. >> =E2=80=A2 Use =E2=80=98font-.*-FORMAT=E2=80=99 only when there happens= to be separate packages >> for separate formats. FORMAT would be the format short name, like >> =E2=80=98ttf=E2=80=99, =E2=80=98otf=E2=80=99, =E2=80=98type1=E2=80= =99. >> WDYT, fellow nitpickers? :-) > > This sounds like quite an interesting solution - so we would completely d= rop > the upstream package name and only go for the font name (which would norm= ally > be some part of the upstream package name, I suppose). > > What would be the role of FOUNDRY? Should we try to find it out for most > fonts, or would it only be there to avoid confusions for fonts such as > Garamond? Some fonts are created by hobbyists rather than a foundry. Some of the fonts created by foundries are often referred to it using the foundry=E2=80=99s name, such as =E2=80=9CBitstream Vera=E2=80=9D; there= are also counter-examples, like Gentium, Charis, etc. (by SIL.) So, again very informally, I would suggest to use the foundry name in cases where people expect to see it, and in cases where it removes ambiguity with similarly-named fonts. What do people think? >> IMO the goal should be to find something convenient for users. >> Sometimes, maybe, there will be several valid choices for the package >> name, but that=E2=80=99s fine, I think. > > Maybe we could refine the rules once an ambiguity occurs and see if we can > lift it. Sure. > One suggestion: I would like to keep the names of the x.org fonts as they > are, following the software package guidelines. I think they are more sof= tware > than fonts that actual users would employ to typeset their documents. Yes, I agree. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.