2009/1/14 Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:09:57PM +0200, Sarantis Paskalis wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Now, the draft for font naming guidelines suggests the srpm name to >> changed from tetex-font-cm-lgc to ctan-cm-lgc-fonts (to which I agree). > > Looks good to me too. > >> The reason for this email is the last line in the proposed table, where >> the TeX related subpackage is to be named ctan-cm-lgc-tex. I think this >> is inconsistent with the rest of the TeX world in fedora and would like >> some feedback as to what name would be preferable. > > I would personally prefer > > tex-cm-lgc > > for the TeX specific stuff. It is not consistent with the srpm name > but it is consistent with the upstream (CTAN) package name, and it seems > to me that it would be more consistent with non font tex pacakge names, > and easier for user if it is called that way instead of ctan-cm-lgc-tex, > or ctan-cm-lgc-fonts-tex. tex-cm-lgc-fonts would also be possible, but > I would prefer using simply the CTAN package name. Unfortunatly, in > that case, the .sty is called cmlgc.sty and not cm-lgc.sty, but it is > still closer to the package name. > > Also there may be TeX packages that also have fonts, but consist mainly > in tex stuff, in that case, I think that the srpm could be called > tex-some-package > though the font parts should still be called > ctan-some-package-fonts-common > ctan-some-package-fonts-roman Yes, I whole heartedly agree with Pat. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
