Andreas Enge (2014-10-30 22:17 +0300) wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 09:55:34PM +0300, Alex Kost wrote: >> I agree with that and I would prefer to see: >> ttf-bitstream-vera >> ttf-dejavu >> ttf-freefont >> ttf-liberation >> ttf-symbola
I suggest this ↑ IIUC it is a common practice in other distributions. >> instead of (following the upstream name): >> ttf-bitstream-vera >> dejavu-fonts-ttf >> freefont-ttf >> liberation-fonts-ttf >> symbola Andreas prefers this ↑ > This is not quite consistent, as you sometimes drop "fonts", sometimes keep > "font". Adapting the python convention (put "ttf-" in front, drop all other > occurrences of "ttf" and resulting double dashes) would end up with: > ttf-bitstream-vera > ttf-dejavu-fonts > ttf-freefont > ttf-liberation-fonts > ttf-symbola I don't suggest that ↑ > Dropping additonally all occurrences of "fonts" and "font" would end up with: > ttf-bitstream-vera > ttf-dejavu > ttf-free <-- somewhat silly > ttf-liberation > ttf-symbola And I don't suggest that ↑ I'm against any strict binding to an upstream name. Why should we stick to a (potentially strange) upstream name if we know better how a package should be called? What do other people think?
