Re: Font package naming convention

[Alex Kost]

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?