From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Font package naming convention
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:36:38 +0300
Message-ID: <877fzch0d5.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <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>
	<87ioixo71g.fsf@gnu.org> <20141102174935.GF6865@debian>
	<87d294u0la.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20141103093001.GB7644@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37173)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alezost@gmail.com>) id 1XlHoS-0000Ux-Re
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 08:37:01 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alezost@gmail.com>) id 1XlHoJ-00013P-C2
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2014 08:36:52 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20141103093001.GB7644@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr> (Andreas
	Enge's message of "Mon, 3 Nov 2014 10:30:01 +0100")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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 <andreas@enge.fr>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Andreas Enge (2014-11-03 12:30 +0300) wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 09:53:21AM +0100, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote:
>> If there=E2=80=99s rough consensus on this, the next step would be to wr=
ite this
>> informal rule in the manual, and to update package names.
>>=20
>> Any volunteer?  Alex?  :-)
>
> I volunteer, as I feel responsible for the package guidelines.

Great!  Thanks and sorry if my messages here were offensive.  I'm going
to update and resend my patch with liberation fonts package for the new
convention when the names of the existing font packages will be updated.

--=20
Alex