On 28 February 2015 at 00:26, Guilherme Amadio <ama...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: >> >> 1. lu_zero, matsuu, pva: do you still want to be members of the Fonts >> project? Then add yourselves to the new project page: >> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Fonts > > I'm listed, but why can I not edit the page? I'd like to be able to.
You need to contact a...@gentoo.org to give you developer status on the wiki. >> 3. Handling of fonts with both truetype and opentype variants, as >> brought up in https://bugs.gentoo.org/406301#c8 >> Since OpenType is an extension of TrueType, and superior for desktop >> and printing use, I propose that we prefer installing just OpenType. >> But this should be user configurable, so in those cases I propose we >> do: >> >> IUSE="+opentype" >> if use opentype; then >> FONT_SUFFIX="otf" >> else >> FONT_SUFFIX="ttf" >> fi > > Both this and the use expand suggested by Luca seem good methods. > I also suggest we prefer OpenType over TrueType whenever possible. We need to get an addition to the eclass whipped up then, for use expand handling. >> 4. Project member should have a look at font bugs. >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=media-fonts has a lot >> of low hanging fruit: version bumps, dead homepages, etc. Also some >> good new packages. > > I've seen a few of those and suggested webpages for a couple of them. > I can go fix some of these if nobody else does. Please do. >> 5. Some fonts have webfont variants (WOFF is the important one here). >> This may be useful for users doing web development. What are your >> thoughts on installing those (conditionally, toggled by useflag)? > > Since this is mostly used for web developers, I recommend to leave it > off for desktop users, but possibly on for servers, for example. If we do the use expand, we should leave it up for users to set. I suggest we default to only otf, if there is a choice. Other formats should not be installed by default, unless it's the only option for that package. >> Anything else you want to discuss? >> > > I'd like to suggest that we do not name new font packages font-*, but > simply by the name of the typeface, such as open-sans, source-pro, etc. I totally agree. I would also like to prevent format suffixes, such as in ttf-bitstream-vera. And I would also like just lowercase package names. I think all font-* packages we have in the tree are X.org shipped bitmap fonts. It's a useful indication for most users to ignore these. > There is Source Serif, Source Sans, and Source Han Sans that are not > packaged yet (see https://github.com/adobe-fonts for more info), We do have media-fonts/source-pro, and I am planning on bumping that package, as per bug #429780. I am hesitant to include the Han font tho, since it is a 700+ MB download that may catch users unawares. > as well > as many other nice and well-known typefaces and icon fonts such as > Aller, Amble, Casper, Clear Sans, Entypo, Font Awesome, Signika, Comic > Neue, Fira, Nexa, Exo, Nobile, Open Sans, etc. Some of those are on my to-do list already, but feel free to add others. > There is also the really nice Input (http://input.fontbureau.com), but > its license is only free for personal use, so we may need to talk to its > designer to see if we can package it at all. I'm using it on my laptop, > and it's a pleasure to read and very customizable. The non-redistributable license is a problem. That's why I have chosen not to include Envy R (which is somewhat popular for coding too). Adding fonts with fetch restrictions seem counter-productive to me. Users can simply download them for themselves and drop them in ~/.fonts/. > Well, maybe opening a #gentoo-fonts on IRC will be a nice way to > coordinate our efforts. I don't think there will be that much to discuss on an ongoing basis wrt fonts that it warrants a new channel. Let's keep it in #gentoo-desktop for now, and see if we actually need a dedicated channel. > Also, this is definitely a minor thing, but all designers prefer the > term typeface to font when referring to typefaces, so they'd probably be > happy if media-fonts became media-type, or something similar. The > distinction is that the set of fonts (regular, light, bold, condensed, > etc) is what makes a typeface, which is the general style of all fonts > in the set. Anyway, just food for thought. I am aware of this, but the usage of "fonts" is so ingrained in the popular mind, and it's a minor mistake at worst. I don't think it is worth going thru the trouble of renaming the category (and fixing all revdeps) for. We could use "typeface" in descriptions tho. Finally, I would like to bring up fontconfig-ultimate [1] with a user provided ebuild [2] and some discussion on the forums [3]. There are also many "fixed" fonts available, packaged for Arch Linux [4]. There is some user demand for this, so I think we should package it. I haven't yet taken the time to do so (too much other stuff going on). What are your thoughts? 1: https://github.com/bohoomil/fontconfig-ultimate 2: http://pastebin.com/iZ3LwbfH 3: http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-993030-highlight-.html 4: http://bohoomil.com/repo/fonts/ -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
