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: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 22:30:24 +0100 Message-ID: <87sii4q64v.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87oaswbs72.fsf@gmail.com> <87bnowlimh.fsf@gnu.org> <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> 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]:52762) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XkJlu-0004Vh-KL for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:30:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XkJlm-0007nG-Vn for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:30:14 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([2a01:474::1]:42300) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XkJlm-0007jC-Gs for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 17:30:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20141031175840.GA16902@debian> (Andreas Enge's message of "Fri, 31 Oct 2014 18:58:40 +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 01:02:44AM +0300, Alex Kost wrote: [...] >> I'm against any strict binding to an upstream name. Why should we stick >> to a (potentially strange) upstream name if we know better how a package >> should be called? > > This is what we have done so far and it is part of the packaging guidelin= es. Yes, and I think we should stick to that for software packages, with the already-documented exceptions of =E2=80=98perl-=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98pytho= n-=E2=80=99. Now, I think a good reason to add an exception for fonts is that it would make it easier to search for them: a software package can be searched by keyword quite reasonably (with =E2=80=98guix package --search= =E2=80=99 & co.), but this is not the case for a font. Being able to type =E2=80=98guix package -A ^font=E2=80=99 (say) is convenient. 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 > 1) > Do we want to have the font format as part of the name? > Not having it would make things easier for packages containing several > formats; a user looking only for special types of fonts would then have to > go through the package descriptions. We could then prepend "font" or "fon= ts" > to the package name and drop it from inside (or keep it additionally insi= de, > which would be somewhat strange, but would avoid strange names occurring = for > "unifont", for instance). > > 2) > Do we distinguish between packages containing one font (possibly in sever= al > variants), prepending it with "font-", and packages containing several > fonts, prepending it with "fonts-", or do we go with a common prefix? > > 3) > If we want to add the font format to the package name, which font formats > do we want to "support"? We need a complete list. > > 4) > For the sake of argument, assume we decided on ttf and otf in 2). > Then packages containing only ttf could be prepended with "ttf" or "ttf-f= ont" > or something like this, likewise for packages containing only otf. > We could use the "file extension" such as "ttf", or any longer version > such as "true-type-fonts". All good points, indeed. I=E2=80=99m not completely sure we can come up with a strict algorithm for = the naming scheme that we will not want to change two weeks later. ;-) 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-FAMI= LY=E2=80=99 or =E2=80=98font-FOUNDRY-COLLECTION=E2=80=99 or =E2=80=98font-COLLECTION= =E2=80=99 as the name. Examples: =E2=80=98font-bitstream-vera=E2=80=99, =E2=80=98font-liberati= on=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? :-) 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. Ludo=E2=80=99.