I agree, packaging families within a superfamily individually sounds better to me On 17 November 2014 11:24, pravin.d.s@xxxxxxxxx <pravin.d.s@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 17 November 2014 15:11, Akira TAGOH <tagoh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> | Hi, >> | >> | On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar >> | <rajeeshknambiar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> | > Hi, >> | > >> | > I'd like to maintain/co-maintain PT Serif[1] and PT Mono[2] fonts by >> | > paratype. Would it be better to include them in the existing PT >> | > Sans[3] fonts package - incorporate in the same spec as multiple >> | > packages, or as individual specs? >> | > >> | > Here's the altered spec file[4] and srpm[5] combining all 3 paratype >> | > fonts. (Note the hack in %prep phase due to source packages containing >> | > same file names). What do you think? >> | > >> | >> | We can solve this by either one of following solution >> | 1) Rename this package paratype-pt-sans-fonts to paratype-pt-fonts and >> | include all 3 types sans, serif, mono in subpackages. >> | OR >> | 2) Add individual packages, add new package paratype-pt-serif-fonts >> | and paratype-pt-mono-fonts. >> >> If upstream ships the archive for them separately, 2) is the way to go for >> packaging according to our font packging policy. > > > +1 > > Regards, > Pravin Satpute > > _______________________________________________ > fonts mailing list > fonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts > http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/ -- Cheers Dave _______________________________________________ fonts mailing list fonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/
