> Ben Armstrong said the following in the thread above called "Linux > Fonts": > > "I question the name free-ttfonts. The convention seems to be: > > ttf[-foundryname]-fontorfamilyname"
I think I know why this conventon developed for true-type fonts: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/debian>grep-available -F Package ttf- -s Package,Installed-Size | grep Installed-Size Installed-Size: 1512 Installed-Size: 2424 Installed-Size: 5948 Installed-Size: 3830 Installed-Size: 12484 Installed-Size: 2704 Installed-Size: 1300 Installed-Size: 28534 Installed-Size: 4660 Installed-Size: 960 Installed-Size: 5204 Installed-Size: 4244 Installed-Size: 10308 (The 960 is a false positive; libttf-dev). All of these packages are quite large, probably because they're all mostly languages with large complex character sets such as asian languages. That doesn't mean we have to mindlessly stick to it when packaging a 100k font though. We also have the example of freefont, which used uner 3 mb for 79 smaller type 1 fonts. > > Note the existing freefont and sharefont packages, which were compiled > > by a Debian developer. Why should truetype fonts be packaged any > > differently? > > > > I don't think they should. My original intent was to make a > free-ttffont package, and I'd rather do that. That makes sense to me. -- see shy jo