Ben Armstrong wrote: > Meta package. A virtual package is something quite different. It is not a > package itself, but rather a package name, named in the "Provides:" control > field, thus emacs21 and emacs20 both have "Provides" of the virutal package > "emacsen". A meta package, on the other hand, is a real package that has > nothing but control information in it, usually "Depends:" so when you > install the meta package it causes a group of other packages to be > installed. > > If I gave the impression that the grouping should be by foundry, that is not > what I meant. I think I mentioned that the foundry may be present in the > name of each actual font package, but that is all. I imagined a good > grouping would be by function, i.e. "fonts suitable for foo". The grouping > I suggested was ttf-latin for a nice collection of fonts supporting latin > characters.
I don't understand the reasoning behind bloating debian with a buch of little packages that each include one font file. Can you explain? Note the existing freefont and sharefont packages, which were compiled by a Debian developer. Why should truetype fonts be packaged any differently? -- see shy jo
