where's the wish list for F11?

[sean darcy]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le vendredi 21 novembre 2008 à 12:28 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann'
> Mierzejewski a écrit :
>> On Friday, 21 November 2008 at 11:34, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> 
>>> But anyway you're invited like everyone else on the list to review,
>>> comment on and complete the current font packaging guideline change
>>> proposal on
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation
>> It looks mostly sane (I applied some grammar and punctuation fixes, I hope
>> you don't mind), 
> 
> Thank you for the review and the fixes, I don't mind at all, quite the
> contrary, you're very welcome. Please post any remarks you may have
> about the packages themselves, that's where the long-term value is.
> 
>> but I don't like the naming of "rpm-fonts-filesystem". This
>> has nothing to do with rpm itself, hence it shouldn't look like a subpackage
>> of rpm. Instead, I suggest "fonts-filesystem".
> 
> I fear that by the time I had written the macros, templates, specs, wiki
> pages, and all, my inspiration had quite dried out. I don't like
> rpm-fonts much, but I feel fonts would be too generic a name for the
> base package. If anyone has great naming ideas, I'm all ears.
> 

But can't this be done without making an rpm package ( which may or may 
not raise legal issues).

I'm looking for something much simpler: I go buy/get a font;  I open 
fonts-filesystem/system-config-fonts/whatever ; I point it to the font ( 
Type1, TT, etc); and the font is installed.

Making an rpm package of the font first seems to make this more involved 
than it needs to be.

sean