Le mercredi 28 janvier 2009 à 13:38 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > Le Mer 28 janvier 2009 15:54, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit : > > ke. > >> Well, it seems like there wouldn't be much of a case to obsolete > >> -common > >> in that scenario, just move the license into each subpackage. > > > > I was not clear, sorry. > > > > In that case "documentation" is a multi-meg .doc or .pdf file that > > includes windows installation instructions, examples of the font use > > in bitmap image form, and the § that says "oh, and BTW, the font is © > > X and released under the OFL" > > Shouldn't it be -docs then? -common sounds like something the rest of the > packages should depend on, which apparently is not the case here. It's not -doc because 1. the common packages has also a technical role as owner of common directory 2. several font packages put more than just doc in it (core font indexes, etc) 3. and anyway that's just a name, so please everyone take a break and not start another bike-shedding stage. If you want to comment comment on the technical spec templates, I've taken enough grief over renamings others inflicted on me I won't support in any way a new renaming crusade. > I don't really like the sans and serif separation. It may make sense for > megafonts like DejaVu, or CJK fonts, but can't think of any other case. I can't think of a single srpm in the repository where sans and serif are updated in lockstep at the same coverage (or style) level, except perhaps liberation (and I wouldn't expect this state to survive any serious community contribution). So in theory, I may agree with you, but in practice, sans and serif have different lives. And even if there were some, I wouldn't want to introduce exceptions that induce documentation and maintenance burdens just to make it a little prettier. Brutal simple same rules for everyone is much easier on packagers. -- 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
