[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: naming scheme for fonts packages?



Le Mer 28 février 2007 10:24, Jens Petersen a écrit :

> So perhaps we need to set two naming conventions: using
> "fonts-<language>" for standard international fonts and "<name>-fonts"
> for alternative general fonts?

fonts-foo are usually a mashup of fonts for a specific encoding, and
foo-fonts fonts with distinct style that may span several languages areas.

To be honest I'm not too fond of foo-font packages. They're a necessary
8-bit legacy stopgap, but I'd rather have vibrant font projects competing
on quality and international coverage. You don't get that if you bundle
different upstreams in neutraly named packages. (the fact that FC was more
fonts-foo and FE foo-fonts reflects a rather utilitarian view of fonts
RH-side, and the huge weight of the fossilized fonts sourced from
xfree86/xorg)

IMHO (which if worth what it's worth) you're not packaging generic fonts
for tibetan but a specific font project, and it deserves name recognition
just like any other upstream. So upstreamname-fonts seems more respectful
for me. Also have you though of what will happen should someone want to
package another tibetan font in a few months ?

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]