[Fedora-packaging] Draft vote on Font Package Naming
petersen at redhat.com
Thu Jan 15 02:28:26 UTC 2009
----- "Toshio Kuratomi" <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> This could be taken care of by not renaming existing packages.
> What's your preference, to grandfather or not to grandfather?
I am not sure: opinions seem to differ - also I am not completely clear how many of the packages need to be renamed anyway for foundry, etc. For package names that are changing anyway then this is less of an issue though of course there is still impact on the distro.
So it would be helpful to see a complete list of names for f10 vs proposed f11 names to get a clearer idea about the impact. Maybe even multiple columns comparing the proposals.
> > 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?
> > What is so bad about the current fonts package naming convention
> What is "name" in the above convention? In the original proposal
> handed to us, there was
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".
> 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.
More information about the Fedora-packaging