I agree, packaging families within a superfamily individually sounds
better to me
On 17 November 2014 11:24, pravin.d.s(a)gmail.com <pravin.d.s(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 November 2014 15:11, Akira TAGOH <tagoh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> | Hi,
> |
> | On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar
> | <rajeeshknambiar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> | > Hi,
> | >
> | > I'd like to maintain/co-maintain PT Serif[1] and PT Mono[2] fonts by
> | > paratype. Would it be better to include them in the existing PT
> | > Sans[3] fonts package - incorporate in the same spec as multiple
> | > packages, or as individual specs?
> | >
> | > Here's the altered spec file[4] and srpm[5] combining all 3 paratype
> | > fonts. (Note the hack in %prep phase due to source packages containing
> | > same file names). What do you think?
> | >
> |
> | We can solve this by either one of following solution
> | 1) Rename this package paratype-pt-sans-fonts to paratype-pt-fonts and
> | include all 3 types sans, serif, mono in subpackages.
> | OR
> | 2) Add individual packages, add new package paratype-pt-serif-fonts
> | and paratype-pt-mono-fonts.
>
> If upstream ships the archive for them separately, 2) is the way to go for
> packaging according to our font packging policy.
+1
Regards,
Pravin Satpute
_______________________________________________
fonts mailing list
fonts(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/