From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Font package naming convention
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 01:02:44 +0300
Message-ID: <878ujxdxmj.fsf@gmail.com>
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>
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]:46023)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alezost@gmail.com>) id 1XkE5H-0008AE-9I
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:26:47 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alezost@gmail.com>) id 1Xjxnp-0006WC-OR
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:02:58 -0400
Received: from mail-la0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e]:52329)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alezost@gmail.com>) id 1Xjxnp-0006Ur-Fc
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:02:45 -0400
Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id hs14so5325178lab.33
	for <guix-devel@gnu.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:02:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leviafan (128-74-164-65.broadband.corbina.ru. [128.74.164.65])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
	xs6sm3677265lbb.13.2014.10.30.15.02.43 for <guix-devel@gnu.org>
	(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
	Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20141030191743.GB19999@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr> (Andreas
	Enge's message of "Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:17:43 +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: guix-devel@gnu.org

Andreas Enge (2014-10-30 22:17 +0300) wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 09:55:34PM +0300, Alex Kost wrote:
>> I agree with that and I would prefer to see:
>>   ttf-bitstream-vera
>>   ttf-dejavu
>>   ttf-freefont
>>   ttf-liberation
>>   ttf-symbola

I suggest this =E2=86=91  IIUC it is a common practice in other distributio=
ns.

>> instead of (following the upstream name):
>>   ttf-bitstream-vera
>>   dejavu-fonts-ttf
>>   freefont-ttf
>>   liberation-fonts-ttf
>>   symbola

Andreas prefers this =E2=86=91

> This is not quite consistent, as you sometimes drop "fonts", sometimes ke=
ep
> "font". Adapting the python convention (put "ttf-" in front, drop all oth=
er
> occurrences of "ttf" and resulting double dashes) would end up with:
>  ttf-bitstream-vera
>  ttf-dejavu-fonts
>  ttf-freefont
>  ttf-liberation-fonts
>  ttf-symbola

I don't suggest that =E2=86=91

> Dropping additonally all occurrences of "fonts" and "font" would end up w=
ith:
>  ttf-bitstream-vera
>  ttf-dejavu
>  ttf-free        <-- somewhat silly
>  ttf-liberation
>  ttf-symbola

And I don't suggest that =E2=86=91

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?

What do other people think?