On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Paul Sladen wrote: > > ... which is from before the renaming scheme started. > > ... > > ... Does it fit with the current naming scheme? > I guess you didn't notice,
My apologies for not being more explicit. *In light of the on-going naming scheme change*, I would appreciate some guidance on what to call binary fonts of varying formats derived from the same (source) typeface. Having binary packages all called f-[f-]name but with different contents (for example, TTF, vs. PSF) doesn't work. I would appreciate some guidance, or suggestions on how to disambigute these. For example the inclusion of 'psf-' or 'console-' as a prefix, or postfix. > do the tools for building console fonts still exist in Debian? http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=otf2bdf&searchon=contents http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=bdf2psf&searchon=contents http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=grub-mkfont&searchon=contents ... -Paul -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/724022 Title: Wishlist: Enable use of Ubuntu Mono as .psf console-setup font To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-family/+bug/724022/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
