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”?
