On Wed, 28 May 2014 16:19:16 -0500 Pedro Alejandro López-Valencia <[email protected]> wrote: > El may 28, 2014 1:31 PM, "Bartłomiej Piotrowski" <[email protected]> > escribió: > > > > On Sun, 25 May 2014 12:57:43 +0200 > > SanskritFritz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Jerome Leclanche > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I don't really understand the difference between > > > > community/ttf-droid and any of these: > > > > https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&K=ttf-droid > > > > > > > > Any idea about duplicates in there? > > > > > > ttf-droid-sans > > > Comment by graysky 2012-10-16 21:14 > > > This is only the sans version; the package in [community] contains > > > more flavors. > > > > I'm a bit unsure if it's worth a standalone package. Unwanted files > > can be ignored via NoExtract in pacman.conf… > > Not in this case. The packege in community should really be split into > several different ones that reflect the style and width variants, > namely normal vs codensed and sans vs serif.
This way we should also split ttf-bitstream-vera, ttf-dejavu, ttf-freefont, ttf-liberation and ttf-ubuntu-family. Why limit ourselves to only normal, condensed and so on? Let's split bold and monoscape variants too, because it can save 15MB of our incredibly small hard drives. I'll wait a week with any further actions to see if fellow TUs have different opinion. -- Bartłomiej Piotrowski http://bpiotrowski.pl/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
