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

Re: TeX font package naming guidelines



2009/1/14 Patrice Dumas <pertusus free fr>:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:09:57PM +0200, Sarantis Paskalis wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Now, the draft for font naming guidelines suggests the srpm name to
>> changed from tetex-font-cm-lgc to ctan-cm-lgc-fonts (to which I agree).
>
> Looks good to me too.
>
>> The reason for this email is the last line in the proposed table, where
>> the TeX related subpackage is to be named ctan-cm-lgc-tex.  I think this
>> is inconsistent with the rest of the TeX world in fedora and would like
>> some feedback as to what name would be preferable.
>
> I would personally prefer
>
> tex-cm-lgc
>
> for the TeX specific stuff. It is not consistent with the srpm name
> but it is consistent with the upstream (CTAN) package name, and it seems
> to me that it would be more consistent with non font tex pacakge names,
> and easier for user if it is called that way instead of ctan-cm-lgc-tex,
> or ctan-cm-lgc-fonts-tex. tex-cm-lgc-fonts would also be possible, but
> I would prefer using simply the CTAN package name. Unfortunatly, in
> that case, the .sty is called cmlgc.sty and not cm-lgc.sty, but it is
> still closer to the package name.
>
> Also there may be TeX packages that also have fonts, but consist mainly
> in tex stuff, in that case, I think that the srpm could be called
> tex-some-package
> though the font parts should still be called
> ctan-some-package-fonts-common
> ctan-some-package-fonts-roman

Yes, I whole heartedly agree with Pat.


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