Re: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: Add 'ttf-liberation'.

[Alex Kost]

Andreas Enge (2014-10-30 10:56 +0300) wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:27:49AM +0300, Alex Kost wrote:
>> Why should?  What about “ttf-dejavu”?  Should it be called
>> “dejavu-fonts-ttf” then?
>
> Yes, that was a mistake, maybe inspired from the debian package name.
> We should rename it.

I don't understand why you call it a mistake.  It's just a package name
used by some distributions (and I think it's a good name).  Is there a
convention to use “…-fonts-ttf” in Guix?

>> Then it shouldn't be prefixed with "ttf".  I suggest to use "ttf-…" name
>> only for packages that provide truetype fonts only.  As for the other
>> font packages, I think they should have "font"/"fonts" in their names,
>> no matter would it be in the beginning (font-misc-ethiopic) or in the
>> end (terminus-font).
>
> Then what if it contains other types of fonts? Texlive-data/texfm-dist/fonts
> contains the following 20 subdirectories:
> afm  cmap  fea  map   ofm       ovf  pfm  sfd     tfm       type1
> cid  enc   lig  misc  opentype  ovp  pk   source  truetype  vf
> (not all of them are fonts, some are just metrics and some I do not know).
> Would you suggest to use prefixes type1-, opentype-, pk- also?
> Only if the package contains exactly one format? I think modifying our
> package name rules for fonts will open a can of worms.

I think they should be called “texlive-…”.

What I see in "Arch Linux" is a lot of “ttf-…” packages (including
“ttf-liberation” and “ttf-dejavu”).  IIUC Debian uses the same names for
TrueType fonts.  And I like it.  But anyway, if “liberation-fonts-ttf”
is the prefered variant, I'll fix my patch.  But I think “ttf-dejavu”
should be renamed into “dejavu-fonts-ttf” at first.  And what about
“freefont-ttf” and “ttf-bitstream-vera”?