From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: Font package naming convention Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2014 10:52:05 +0100 Message-ID: <20141101095205.GB30939@debian> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54281) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XkVM6-00079F-Tg for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 05:52:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XkVM0-0003xz-HB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 05:52:22 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87sii4q64v.fsf@gnu.org> 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: Ludovic =?iso-8859-15?Q?Court=E8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Alex Kost 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