On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 00:37 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > 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
If you have a list, please put it in the bugreport, I'll add a todo list in the dev area then. _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
