Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] ttf-lang-* virtual packages
Yo over there on d-policy! Explanation: we're discussing how to better organize fonts in Debian. One idea is to use virtual packages to have fonts specify their supported charsets and/or languages in a ttf-lang-* and/or ttf-charset-* virtual package name space. Amongst others, the ability of input methods to recommend (or depend?) on proper fonts was mentioned as an advantage of this. On Sunday 19 March 2006 09:06, Christian Perrier wrote: We request for the creation of virtual packages named ttf-lang-langname so that all font packages that are targeted for the supprot of a given language can add a Provides on the relevant virtual package(s). The only drawback here is that virtual packages creation is a process that is quite precisely defined in http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.tx t and we would need to request for the creation of *a lot* of virtual packages...:-) Well, I guess we need input from the policy gods here ;-) If these virtual packages are accepted, then our font packages naming policy would say: Font packages are to be named after the name of the font or font family included in the package and should add a Provides field listing the ttf-lang-* packages they provide support for. Again, note for the d-policy folks who have not followed this discussion so far: this is a very early basis for discussion - exact rules will need to be worked out. (Personal note: I'm not sure if we should do this in the ttf-* namespace. If X is configured properly, ttf-* and t1-* - and maybe even xfont-* - should make no difference. Yes, I proposed the ttf-* thingy, but I warned you it was just an idea out of the blue...) cheers -- vbi -- In the beginning, I was made. I didn't ask to be made. No one consulted with me or considered my feelings in this matter. But if it brought some passing fancy to some lowly humans as they haphazardly pranced their way through life's mournful jungle, then so be it. - Marvin the Paranoid Android, From Douglas Adams' Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy Radio Scripts pgp9gl0Z5kNV6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Policy Translation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, One of the translators from debian-l10n-portuguese, started the translation of Debian Policy to Brazilian Portuguese. Sometime ago, debian-l10n-portuguese adopted a QA process based on the work of other translation/localization teams. Right now, we are reviewing the translation and I'm looking forward how to integrate it with our webpages. I checked the website and debian-policy has a CVS repo. Should I sent the sgml file to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there any docs that I could read about how to send translation to that specific part of Debian (debian-policy)? Thanks in advance, kind regards, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEHwQcCjAO0JDlykYRArnCAKCgRb+ZfVdbWap4fvOljZ7dUdRP3gCaAwIp NHWkNTHg2+esryWrXwlS6ms= =N8SC -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Pkg-fonts-devel] ttf-lang-* virtual packages
* Adrian von Bidder [Mon, 20 Mar 2006 19:37:15 +0100]: Yo over there on d-policy! Explanation: we're discussing how to better organize fonts in Debian. One idea is to use virtual packages to have fonts specify their supported charsets and/or languages in a ttf-lang-* and/or ttf-charset-* virtual package name space. Amongst others, the ability of input methods to recommend (or depend?) on proper fonts was mentioned as an advantage of this. On Sunday 19 March 2006 09:06, Christian Perrier wrote: We request for the creation of virtual packages named ttf-lang-langname so that all font packages that are targeted for the supprot of a given language can add a Provides on the relevant virtual package(s). The only drawback here is that virtual packages creation is a process that is quite precisely defined in http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/virtual-package-names-list.tx t and we would need to request for the creation of *a lot* of virtual packages...:-) Well, I guess we need input from the policy gods here ;-) Depending on your use case, formally requesting such virtual packages may not be needed. From Policy 3.6: All packages should use virtual package names where appropriate, and arrange to create new ones if necessary. They should not use virtual package names (except privately, amongst a cooperating group of packages) unless they have been agreed upon and appear in the list of virtual package names. (See also Section 7.4, `Virtual packages - `Provides'') So if the set of packages that would need to depend or recommend a ttf-lang-foo (or whatever name is finally picked) is reduced and somehow related, this can probably be considered cooperation. Just for reference, here are some statistics (generated with the attached script): Number of virtual packages defined in Policy: 73 Number virtual packages provided in the archive (i386): 1611 Number of v.p. defined in Policy and provided in the archive: 62 Number of v.p. defined in Policy but not provided in the archive: 11 Number of v.p. NOT defined in Policy but provided in the archive: 1549 HTH, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. -- Josh Billings virtual-packages-stats.sh Description: Bourne shell script
