3:06 a.m.
Nicolas brought up the point recently in a font package review that we
should standardize the naming of our fonts packages to improve
consistency. The proposal is to name all source packages in the form
"*-fonts".
If we agree on this then I think the Fonts Packaging guidelines should
be updated to explicitly reflect this policy.
Here is a list of our source packages that do not currently end in "-fonts":
These old fonts packages should be renamed I guess:
fonts-ISO8859-2 -> ISO8859-2-fonts?
fonts-KOI8-R -> KOI-R-fonts?
This should probably change:
fonts-hebrew-fancy -> fancy-fonts? (from culmus.sf.net)
thaifonts-scalable (upstream name) -> thai-scalable-fonts?
The following are already in the process of disappearing from rawhide:
fonts-arabic - pending removal
fonts-hebrew -recent devel dead.package
fonts-japanese - renamed to japanese-bitmap-fonts today
A few others (*font*):
efont-unicode-bdf -> unicode-bdf-fonts? (maybe better to replace with
GNU Unifont?)
freefont (maybe this too?)
terminus-font -> terminus-fonts?
3, TeX fonts
Probably TeX fonts are outside this discussion?:
(tetex-fonts-hebrew, tex-fonts-hebrew, tetex-eurofont,
tetex-font-cm-lgc, tetex-font-kerkis)
Did I miss any? :)
Jens
7:05 a.m.
Le Jeu 10 juillet 2008 10:06, Jens Petersen a écrit :
Hi,
Nicolas brought up the point recently in a font package review that
we
should standardize the naming of our fonts packages to improve
consistency. The proposal is to name all source packages in the form
"*-fonts".
Actually I didn't want to push the idea just before leaving for a long
vacation, but since it's on the table:
1. we've slowly been consolidating our font naming to foo-fonts packages
2. however we're still a long way from good consistency, such as the
one achieved Debian and Ubuntu-side
https://launchpad.net/~fonts/+packages
(note I think some of their choices are not too good, for example
using TTF when font formats change and indeed most modern fonts are
OTF)
3. consistency is good for users, it helps them find and discover
packages
4. consistency can not be achieved without deviating a little from
upstream naming, since upstreams are widly inconsistent in their
choices.
If I had to propose a convention today that would be
foundry-name-fonts (single package)
foundry-name-fonts-sub (subpackage)
Right now we're not far from it but just different enough to annoy users:
1. a few packages deviate from pure -fonts suffix
2. a lot of packages are inconsistent on the foundry bits (in
particular sil fonts are packaged in many different ways)
If we agree on this then I think the Fonts Packaging guidelines
should
be updated to explicitly reflect this policy.
Here is a list of our source packages that do not currently end in
"-fonts":
These old fonts packages should be renamed I guess:
fonts-ISO8859-2 -> ISO8859-2-fonts?
fonts-KOI8-R -> KOI-R-fonts?
This should probably change:
fonts-hebrew-fancy -> fancy-fonts? (from culmus.sf.net)
culmus-fonts-fancy (if it's a subpackage)
culmus-fancy-fonts (if it's a standalone package)
thaifonts-scalable (upstream name) -> thai-scalable-fonts?
thai-scalable-fonts :)
The following are already in the process of disappearing from
rawhide:
fonts-arabic - pending removal
fonts-hebrew -recent devel dead.package
fonts-japanese - renamed to japanese-bitmap-fonts today
A few others (*font*):
efont-unicode-bdf -> unicode-bdf-fonts? (maybe better to replace
with
GNU Unifont?)
gnu-uni-fonts
freefont (maybe this too?)
gnu-free-fonts
terminus-font -> terminus-fonts?
3, TeX fonts
Probably TeX fonts are outside this discussion?:
I don't do TeX. I's sure lova for a TeX expert would join the SIG and
contribute to dicussions.
(tetex-fonts-hebrew, tex-fonts-hebrew, tetex-eurofont,
tetex-font-cm-lgc, tetex-font-kerkis)
Did I miss any? :)
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
9:46 a.m.
On 2008/07/10 14:05 (GMT+0200) Nicolas Mailhot apparently typed:
If I had to propose a convention today that would be
foundry-name-fonts (single package)
foundry-name-fonts-sub (subpackage)
Great way to annoy people who use GUI package managers. They generally when
attempting to search for possible fonts to install will get at least 20 times
as many packages not actually containing fonts as packages actually
containing fonts. Since the results are generally sorted alphabetically, the
packages actually containing fonts are scattered randomly among all the
non-fonts packages. How's a person supposed to figure out what packages that
contain fonts are available? And how many people actually care what foundry
produced them?
The right way, cross-distro- would be for all packages containing one or more
fonts start 'fonts-', and all packages not containing fonts not start with
'fonts-'. e.g.
fontconfig-
fonts-bitmap-
fonts-dejavu-
fonts-freefont-
fonts-ghostscript-
fonts-liberation-
fonts-urw-
fonts-xorg-100dpi-
xorg-x11-font-utils-
--
"Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry."
Ephesians 4:26 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
10:06 a.m.
Le Jeu 10 juillet 2008 16:46, Felix Miata a écrit :
On 2008/07/10 14:05 (GMT+0200) Nicolas Mailhot apparently typed:
> If I had to propose a convention today that would be
> foundry-name-fonts (single package)
> foundry-name-fonts-sub (subpackage)
Great way to annoy people who use GUI package managers. They generally
when attempting to search for possible fonts to install will get at
least 20 times
as many packages not actually containing fonts as packages actually
containing fonts.
Good GUI package managers use repodata groups, either directly or
indirectly (ie packagekit). Expecting a unified fonts- prefix is not
workable with subpackages, short of performing deep rpm vodoo that
makes the link to srpm un-obvious and confuses users in bugzilla.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
10:31 a.m.
On 10:46 Thu 10 Jul , Felix Miata wrote:
Great way to annoy people who use GUI package managers. They
generally when
attempting to search for possible fonts to install will get at least 20 times
as many packages not actually containing fonts as packages actually
containing fonts.
One could say such people should select some font category in
their
GUI pgk manager and then comfortably select right fonts.
Or issue:
yum groupinfo Fonts
Just a matter of comps if the category includes non-font stuff.
Michal
11:22 a.m.
Le jeudi 10 juillet 2008 à 17:31 +0200, Michal Nowak a écrit :
Or issue:
yum groupinfo Fonts
Just a matter of comps if the category includes non-font stuff.
Unless I've made a mistake somewhere, our guidelines make very clear
both that fonts packages must be declared in comps and how to makez that
declaration.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
1:15 p.m.
On 2008/07/10 17:31 (GMT+0200) Michal Nowak apparently typed:
On 10:46 Thu 10 Jul , Felix Miata wrote:
> Great way to annoy people who use GUI package managers. They
generally when
> attempting to search for possible fonts to install will get at least 20 times
> as many packages not actually containing fonts as packages actually
> containing fonts.
One could say such people should select some font category in their
GUI pgk manager and then comfortably select right fonts.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430836 has stopped me from doing
more than token new installs for quite some time, so I don't know the current
state of the package selection process during installation. I don't remember
anything about any package group named fonts last I looked there.
As to the current state of the GUI package manager in F9, I have no idea what
it looks like or can do, because starting KDE4 from KDM kills video or puts
display to sleep in both KDE and all ttys ever since last updates on my Intel
845G.
Try thinking like a n00b trying a distro for the first time instead of
someone who has the whole system hard-coded in their brain - outside your
normal box. Don't you think the first thing they'll think of is typing the
word font or fonts into a search box? It's exactly what I would do, unless
the word fonts was already staring me in the face.
Or issue:
yum groupinfo Fonts
Sweet, but how many n00bs you think are going to know about it within a
reasonable time after installation?
Just a matter of comps if the category includes non-font stuff.
I don't understand your statement "matter of comps".
--
"Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry."
Ephesians 4:26 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
1:45 p.m.
On 14:15 Thu 10 Jul , Felix Miata wrote:
As to the current state of the GUI package manager in F9, I have no
idea what
it looks like or can do, because starting KDE4 from KDM kills video or puts
display to sleep in both KDE and all ttys ever since last updates on my Intel
845G.
gpk-application
The first fist-time-user will do is to click on "Font". In case it works
(s)he will get list of font.
I don't understand your statement "matter of comps".
Nicolas pointed it in this tread already.
Looks like a beginning of pointless flame, I am not going to go on in this
thread.
Michal
2:29 p.m.
On 2008/07/10 20:45 (GMT+0200) Michal Nowak apparently typed:
On 14:15 Thu 10 Jul , Felix Miata wrote:
> I don't understand your statement "matter of
comps".
Nicolas pointed it in this tread already.
I saw what he wrote before I wrote. I don't understand his response either.
What is "matter of comps"?
--
"Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry."
Ephesians 4:26 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
1:24 a.m.
On 15:29 Thu 10 Jul , Felix Miata wrote:
I saw what he wrote before I wrote. I don't understand his
response either.
What is "matter of comps"?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CompsXml#Fonts
It originaly should mean that we have to deal in good way with comps.xml
to be sure our font is placed in right category.
Open comps.xml, seeing is beliveing.
Michal
5769
days inactive
5770
days old
9 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Felix Miata -
Jens-Ulrik Petersen -
Michal Nowak -
Nicolas Mailhot