From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Font package naming convention Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:20:46 +0100 Message-ID: <87ioj1sccx.fsf_-_@gnu.org> References: <87oaswbs72.fsf@gmail.com> <87bnowlimh.fsf@gnu.org> <20141029221647.GA29707@debian> <87d29af24q.fsf@gmail.com> <20141030075640.GB27584@debian> <8738a5g1nh.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38609) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XkEGR-0006Nh-7w for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 11:38:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjtOf-0004Yt-NP for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:20:42 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([2a01:474::1]:41165) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjtOf-0004Yd-Fr for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2014 13:20:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <8738a5g1nh.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:52:50 +0300") 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: Alex Kost Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Alex Kost skribis: > Andreas Enge (2014-10-30 10:56 +0300) wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:27:49AM +0300, Alex Kost wrote: >>> Why should? What about =E2=80=9Cttf-dejavu=E2=80=9D? Should it be cal= led >>> =E2=80=9Cdejavu-fonts-ttf=E2=80=9D then? >> >> Yes, that was a mistake, maybe inspired from the debian package name. >> We should rename it. > > I don't understand why you call it a mistake. It's just a package name > used by some distributions (and I think it's a good name). Is there a > convention to use =E2=80=9C=E2=80=A6-fonts-ttf=E2=80=9D in Guix? There=E2=80=99s no documented convention (yet), so it=E2=80=99s not a mista= ke strictly speaking. :-) >>> Then it shouldn't be prefixed with "ttf". I suggest to use "ttf-=E2=80= =A6" name >>> only for packages that provide truetype fonts only. As for the other >>> font packages, I think they should have "font"/"fonts" in their names, >>> no matter would it be in the beginning (font-misc-ethiopic) or in the >>> end (terminus-font). >> >> Then what if it contains other types of fonts? Texlive-data/texfm-dist/f= onts >> contains the following 20 subdirectories: >> afm cmap fea map ofm ovf pfm sfd tfm type1 >> cid enc lig misc opentype ovp pk source truetype vf >> (not all of them are fonts, some are just metrics and some I do not know= ). >> Would you suggest to use prefixes type1-, opentype-, pk- also? >> Only if the package contains exactly one format? I think modifying our >> package name rules for fonts will open a can of worms. > > I think they should be called =E2=80=9Ctexlive-=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D. > > What I see in "Arch Linux" is a lot of =E2=80=9Cttf-=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D pa= ckages (including > =E2=80=9Cttf-liberation=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cttf-dejavu=E2=80=9D). IIUC= Debian uses the same names for > TrueType fonts. And I like it. But anyway, if =E2=80=9Cliberation-fonts= -ttf=E2=80=9D > is the prefered variant, I'll fix my patch. But I think =E2=80=9Cttf-dej= avu=E2=80=9D > should be renamed into =E2=80=9Cdejavu-fonts-ttf=E2=80=9D at first. And = what about > =E2=80=9Cfreefont-ttf=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cttf-bitstream-vera=E2=80=9D? I think we must settle on a convention, and I would personally prefer to follow the principle of least surprise=E2=80=93i.e., choose a convention th= at is already widespread elsewhere. WDYT? Ludo=E2=80=99.