Re: Font package naming convention

[Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr>]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:30:24PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Furthermore, unlike software packages, what matters here is the actual
> name of the font or font collection, not the “system name” or “tarball
> name.”
> Here’s a possible answer to the above questions, informally:
>   • Use ‘font-FOUNDRY-FAMILY’ or ‘font-FAMILY’ or
>     ‘font-FOUNDRY-COLLECTION’ or ‘font-COLLECTION’ as the name.
>     Examples: ‘font-bitstream-vera’, ‘font-liberation’, ‘font-unifont’.
>   • Use ‘font-.*-FORMAT’ only when there happens to be separate packages
>     for separate formats.  FORMAT would be the format short name, like
>     ‘ttf’, ‘otf’, ‘type1’.
> WDYT, fellow nitpickers?  :-)

This sounds like quite an interesting solution - so we would completely drop
the upstream package name and only go for the font name (which would normally
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?

> 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’s fine, I think.

Maybe we could refine the rules once an ambiguity occurs and see if we can
lift it.

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 software
than fonts that actual users would employ to typeset their documents.

Andreas