From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Kost Subject: Re: Font package naming convention Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2014 13:55:28 +0300 Message-ID: <87bnorrxzz.fsf@gmail.com> 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> <87fve3s1nl.fsf@gmail.com> <20141101094552.GA30939@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33830) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XkWLN-0004DC-Bj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:55:50 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XkWLE-0005Vu-7L for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:55:41 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-x229.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c04::229]:38027) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XkWLD-0005Uy-MH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 06:55:32 -0400 Received: by mail-lb0-f169.google.com with SMTP id p9so1612552lbv.28 for ; Sat, 01 Nov 2014 03:55:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20141101094552.GA30939@debian> (Andreas Enge's message of "Sat, 1 Nov 2014 10:45:52 +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 Andreas Enge (2014-11-01 12:45 +0300) wrote: > Alex, > > On Sat, Nov 01, 2014 at 12:36:30PM +0300, Alex Kost wrote: >> I think the majority should decide. So if the most of guix people think >> that it should be named "bar", then let it be so. > > for this we would need an "infrastructure": a social contract, a voting > system and what else not, which seems a bit like overkill to decide on package > names. Even debian does not hold general resolutions for the names of their > packages... I don't see a need in the infrastructure: there is guix-devel ML and there are only few people who is doing the most of work: you, Ludovic, Mark, Eric, Nikita, John, Cyril, David. So a majority of you should decide (IMO). >> However, I still think that having the following packages would be the >> best: >> ttf-bitstream-vera >> ttf-dejavu >> ttf-freefont >> ttf-liberation >> ttf-symbola > > Okay, could you please formulate your suggestion into a rule that we could > follow for other font packages than these five? My only rule is: the upstream name shouldn't always be blindly taken as a package name; if Guix developers think there is a more appropriate name, then use it.