|
I realized recently that my two font packages on AUR had incorrect install scripts (which I had adapted from existing scripts on ABS). I have now corrected them. But while looking at my ABS tree, it turned out that a large proportion of font packages in Arch repositories have install scripts that are at least as bad! (Must be a reflection of fontconfig's terrible documentation...) This entry in Flyspray <http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/4117> accurately points out that standardization of font install files is really needed in Arch. My question is this: if I were to file a bug report for each font package with incorrect/imperfect install script, I would need to repeat the same process again and again. It would be actually simpler to list the font packages that are OK, namely 6 out of ca. 30 (font-bh-ttf, gsfonts, xorg-fonts-100dpi, xorg-fonts-75dpi, xorg-fonts-misc, and xorg-fonts-type1 are fine). All others are flawed... really. So is it ok in this case to file only one generic report on FlySpray for those two dozen problematic font packages? In addition I could also create a wiki on packaging guidelines for fonts here: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards ... It was often stated on the Forum that fonts and i18n are two of Arch's main weaknesses (which is not really true). In any case, since there are Arch users in Brasil, Russia, Greece, China... well, I think it really is an important issue to have a good packaging of fonts. What do you think? Firmicus |
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
