[Fedora-packaging] Draft vote on Font Package Naming

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Thu Jan 15 01:33:23 UTC 2009

Jens Petersen wrote:
> ----- "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
>> The draft is available here:
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_%
>> 282009-01-13%29
> Sorry but this is not a good idea IMO.  It requires 119 binary font packages in rawhide to be renamed, a number of which are referenced by a number of other packages in the distro.
This could be taken care of by not renaming existing packages.  What's
your preference, to grandfather or not to grandfather?

> It also makes it hard for people to work out what the source package name is.
Not unduly.  Unlike our original feedback to Nicolas that a prefix of
font- would be preferable, this groups the font binary subpackage close
to the font package it comes from in any menu entries.  That makes it
relatively easy to find the source package.

> What is so bad about the current fonts package naming convention "name-fonts-face"?
What is "name" in the above convention?  In the original proposal handed
to us, there was foundryname[-fontprojectname]-fonts[-fontfamilyname].

This seems like an odd format as there's two mandatory and two optional
sections separated from each other.  The sections also bounce back and
forth between general and specific criteria.  Pulling the font packages
out of a list of rpms requires more coding and guesswork than when the
-fonts is at one end or the other as well.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20090114/db21cb08/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list