[Fedora-i18n-list] Re: naming scheme for fonts packages?

[Jens Petersen]

Hi,

Thanks for the followup.

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> 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.

Well the prospect of good free fonts with really wide unicode glyph 
coverage is not something that is going to happen anytime soon I'm 
afraid.  Having lived 12 years in Japan my perspective is probably a bit 
different from many Fedora developers.  We really really need those 
fonts-* packages for Asian languages and scripts.  :)  And as a 
data-point the big desktop OSs also ship lots of separate fonts for them 
AFAIK.

> To be honest I'm not too fond of foo-font packages.

Sorry, did you mean "fonts-*"?

> 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)

I agree with you for fonts for Western languages for which it is 
possible to have reasonable coverage with limited resources.

> 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 ?

Well in the review we are actually now discussing putting two GPL 
Tibetan fonts in the same package if it is going by the generic language 
name.

Jens