Le jeudi 01 janvier 2009 à 21:09 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit : > On Tuesday 30 December 2008, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > [...] Hi > Sorry for hijacking the thread for something quite unrelated, np > but for me > the "fontpackages" package name sounds pretty weird. I think similar > packages are usually called foo-common; was "fonts-common" ever considered? I rather like the way it expands in nice self-explanatory fontpackages-filesystem and fontpackages-devel binary packages. It has some consistency with fontconfig (which felt strange at first when it was introduced too). Also, I'd rather avoid any name with the fonts- or -fonts affix as those denote past and present font packages and this package has not fonts at all inside it. Anyway, the project was originally named rpmfonts, and then during review people asked for a name change (various abandonned proposals: fonts-rpm, fonts, etc). So it was already renamed once. Since the package name translates in a fedorahosted project name, a FAS group name, is used in the templates which have already been applied to more than 30 packages, is used in wiki documentation, I'm not thrilled at the idea of doing another renaming. But I will do it if people want to and someone finds an awesome new name. I'm not convinced fonts-common is such a name :p Happy new year, -- Nicolas Mailhot
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
_______________________________________________ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
