Stuart Henderson writes: > On 2016/01/29 04:12, Anthony J. Bentley wrote: > > Hi George, > > > > George Rosamond writes: > > > Greetings ports@ > > > > > > Here are more fonts for consideration, all from SIL.org. Many more > > > coming over the next week. > > > > > > abyssinica: an Ethiopic Unicode script > > > andika: a clear sans serif Unicode font > > > charis: clear Unicode font for printers > > > dai-banna: Unicode font package for New Tai Lue characters > > > doulos: Unicode font for Roman and Cyrillic > > > > Thanks for submitting these. I've made a few changes to the ports: > > > > - added PKG_ARCH = * > > - most of the homepages have moved > > - with some URL trickery there's no need to manually mirror the distfiles > > - the license does look like SIL OFL 1.1 to me, not a custom license > > > > I think these are ready for import. Well, I'm not qualified to test > > Ethiopian script. But the other ones certainly work. :) > > > > ok? > > > > -- > > Anthony J. Bentley > > It's not entirely consistent at the moment, but most of our fonts either > have 'font'/'fonts' or the format (ttf/otf) in the package name, which > I think might be useful to do for these too. What does anyone else > think?
George actually this exact question several months ago, and I suggested to just use whatever's closest to upstream. It seems redundant to name everything fonts/foo-fonts... In particular, I *really* hate having to specify ttf/otf in the package name, especially now that there are other font formats showing up in packages (.ttc, .woff, ...). When I want a font, I just want the package to install all formats that are likely to be necessary. > Hi George, > > George Rosamond writes: > > Looking at the current font names, some of the non-Latin ones (Farsi, > > Arabic) aren't prepended with the ISO 639-1 two-letter language code, > > while others (Russian, eg), are. > > I believe this is an artifact. The fonts with language prefixes use > ja-, ko-, ru-, and zh-. Before the fonts/ category was created, these > were kept in the japanese/, korean/, russian/, and chinese/ categories. > > > I have a bunch of font ports in-progress, including non-Latin fonts, and > > was wondering what the correct nomenclature is. > > There is no standard nomenclature. > > - some fonts end in -font or -fonts (e.g., droid-fonts) > - some fonts end in -ttf or -otf (e.g., ja-mplus-ttf) > - some have both (e.g., linuxlibertine-fonts-otf) > - some have neither (e.g., adobe-source-sans-pro) > > Really, you should just use whatever is closest to upstream's name for it. > > Personally I would prefer not to have separate packages for otf and ttf.
