Andreas Enge (2014-10-31 20:58 +0300) wrote: > On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 01:02:44AM +0300, Alex Kost wrote:
>> 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? > > This is what we have done so far and it is part of the packaging guidelines. > Otherwise there would be absolutely no limit to renaming and bikeshedding. > What if you think that "foo" should be renamed "bar" and I think it should > be renamed "truc"? I think the majority should decide. So if the most of guix people think that it should be named "bar", then let it be so. > If you want to make a suggestion of a naming scheme that others can follow, > please come up with a description of an algorithm as for python modules - > a transformation of an upstream name into a package name. I wrote what seems appropriate to me at <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2014-10/msg00457.html>: If a package provides only truetype font(s), name it “ttf-…”, other font packages should contain "font" in their names; or ... Ludovic Courtès (2014-11-01 00:30 +0300) wrote: > I’m not completely sure we can come up with a strict algorithm for the > naming scheme that we will not want to change two weeks later. ;-) > > Here’s a possible answer to the above questions, informally: > > • Use ‘font-FOUNDRY-FAMILY’ or ‘font-FAMILY’ or > ‘font-FOUNDRY-COLLECTION’ or ‘font-COLLECTION’ as the name. > > Examples: ‘font-bitstream-vera’, ‘font-liberation’, ‘font-unifont’. > > • Use ‘font-.*-FORMAT’ only when there happens to be separate packages > for separate formats. FORMAT would be the format short name, like > ‘ttf’, ‘otf’, ‘type1’. > > WDYT, fellow nitpickers? :-) > > IMO the goal should be to find something convenient for users. > Sometimes, maybe, there will be several valid choices for the package > name, but that’s fine, I think. ... I agree with this point, and perhaps it would be good to follow a single simple rule: A package that provides fonts (only fonts, not some big product with a couple of fonts), should have "font(s)" in its name, for example: “freefont”, “font-bitstream-vera”, “terminus-font”, “liberation-fonts”. However, I still think that having the following packages would be the best: ttf-bitstream-vera ttf-dejavu ttf-freefont ttf-liberation ttf-symbola and the following (according to the current convention) would be the worst: ttf-bitstream-vera dejavu-fonts-ttf freefont-ttf liberation-fonts-ttf symbola -- Alex
