[Fedora-packaging] Draft vote on Font Package Naming

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Jens Petersen wrote:
> ----- "Toshio Kuratomi" <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
> 
> That is already mostly true of the current (f10) naming scheme, isn't it?
> 
AFAICS it's currently, maintainer's choice.  Am I missing the current
Guideline?

>>> 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].
> 
> Yes, I guess I meant [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.
> 
> "%Package family" is a lot simpler than "%Package -n foundry-font-family-fonts".
> 
Simpler is good but this just moves the complexity from the packager to
the user.  Why do you have "fonts" in the name at all?  I assume it's so
a person can tell by glancing at the package name that the package
contains fonts?  So it should be placed somewhere that highlights this
fact -- either the beginning or end.  What's the difference between a
fonts-common and fonts-sans?  Do they both contain fonts?

>> 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.
> 
> Well it just requires "*fonts*" rather than "*fonts".  IMHO that is a small win and we are already used to the former glob anyway.
> 
It depends on what you are doing.  In yum, '*fonts*' might yield a
correct result because you're depsolving.  But selecting only packages
containing fonts in the shell because you want to find the total
size/number of font packages in the repo or make sure they all contain
fonts would not work (for instance, they drag in the fonts-common
subpackages).

-Toshio

-------------- 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/20090114/5a64be8d/attachment.sig>