Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le vendredi 21 novembre 2008 à 12:28 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann'
Mierzejewski a écrit :
On Friday, 21 November 2008 at 11:34, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
But anyway you're invited like everyone else on the list to review,
comment on and complete the current font packaging guideline change
proposal on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation
It looks mostly sane (I applied some grammar and punctuation fixes, I hope
you don't mind),
Thank you for the review and the fixes, I don't mind at all, quite the
contrary, you're very welcome. Please post any remarks you may have
about the packages themselves, that's where the long-term value is.
but I don't like the naming of "rpm-fonts-filesystem". This
has nothing to do with rpm itself, hence it shouldn't look like a subpackage
of rpm. Instead, I suggest "fonts-filesystem".
I fear that by the time I had written the macros, templates, specs, wiki
pages, and all, my inspiration had quite dried out. I don't like
rpm-fonts much, but I feel fonts would be too generic a name for the
base package. If anyone has great naming ideas, I'm all ears.
But can't this be done without making an rpm package ( which may or may
not raise legal issues).
I'm looking for something much simpler: I go buy/get a font; I open
fonts-filesystem/system-config-fonts/whatever ; I point it to the font (
Type1, TT, etc); and the font is installed.
Making an rpm package of the font first seems to make this more involved
than it needs to be.
sean
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
