Re: Font packages

At Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:41:53 +0000,
Bryan Baron wrote:
> 
> Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Fri, 8 Jul 2011 02:08:18 +0000,
> > Bryan Baron wrote:
> >>
> >> I recently submitted some font packages (ancient scripts) to M17N. I
> >> think I did a mistake naming them as foo-fonts.
> >>
> >> What's the police for package names? Was that naming scheme right?
> >
> > I vaguely remember that there were some guidelines in Wiki, but
> > in practice, we have no strict rule for it, so far.
> >
> > Some packages are named as is, some are as *-fonts, and some fonts-*
> > or *-ttf-* or such.  Most likely named from the original source
> > tarball.
> >
> > I find *-fonts name is OK, unless someone has a strong objection.
> >
> > They are still only in M17N, not in FACTORY, so we are free to change
> > for now.
> >
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > Takashi
> >
> 
> Well, I think is just better to have a ''standarized" naming scheme.
> What about just using the font names, so instead of *foo* we name it
> just foo. (ej. symbola-fonts -> symbola, ttf-alee->alee).

IMO, having prefix or suffix makes easier to identify that it's a
font package.

I vaguely remember that there is a (tentative) packaging rule for
fonts, but I couldn't find it in Wiki.  But there should be still
there...


Takashi
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]