Le jeudi 01 mars 2007 à 09:29 +1000, Jens Petersen a écrit :
Thanks for the followup.
No charge ;)
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> To be honest I'm not too fond of foo-font packages.
Sorry, did you mean "fonts-*"?
I agree with you for fonts for Western languages for which it is
possible to have reasonable coverage with limited resources.
A general font like DejaVu does lao, arabic (better support is waiting
on better opentype support pango & qt-side) aboriginal canadian
syllabics, armenian, greek, cyrillic so I don't think the "western only"
qualifier applies. You just need to get people to work together, doing a
whole unicode block is no harder within an unicode font than within a
specific font (in fact it's easier since you don't have to redo latin
like all the asian fonts do now)
> IMHO (which if worth what it's worth) you're not
packaging generic fonts
> for tibetan but a specific font project, and it deserves name recognition
> just like any other upstream. So upstreamname-fonts seems more respectful
> for me. Also have you though of what will happen should someone want to
> package another tibetan font in a few months ?
Well in the review we are actually now discussing putting two GPL
Tibetan fonts in the same package if it is going by the generic language
That's the logical next step. It feels like putting kmail and evolution
in the same "MUA" package though. Can't you get by with a "Tibetan
support" comps group instead ? I will work with font packages crossing
langage boundaries, not force users to install every single font for one
langage (and in CJK countries that weights quite a lot), allow you to
follow two separate upstream release schedules, etc.