Re: Font package naming convention

[Alex Kost]

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