On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Bruno Friedmann wrote:

On Tuesday 24 November 2015 23.25:17 Felix Miata wrote:

...

http://download.opensuse.org/tumbleweed/repo/oss/suse/noarch/google-noto-fon... http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/13.2/repo/oss/suse/noarch/google-n... http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/leap/42.1/repo/oss/suse/noarch/goo...

are each less than 10k and contain neither otf nor ttf files. Is that expected? https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=951898 suggests not. If yes, what is the package for? If yes, where are they installed? rpm query seems to say package should contain fonts.

If you take the time to search on obs google-noto-fonts you will be able to find the package itself https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/M17N:fonts/google-noto-fonts

A simple look in one of the build and the .changes https://build.opensuse.org/package/live_build_log/M17N:fonts/google-noto-fon...

will give you a clue.

You are overoprimistic.

it's an empty/meta package, noto-sans is what you're looking for no ?

Yes, it is meta package, and what is the purpose of this meta package? Installing it won't install any fonts (because requires are in reverse order). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote:

...

Yes, it is meta package, and what is the purpose of this meta package?

It provides the license text that is shared among all sub packages.

Do you think it makes sense to include the above in package Description to avoid confusion?

In theory, if any fontconfig override or such a special setup would be required, it can be stored there, too.

Something like "this package inlcudes license and configuration files common to all fonts. Individual fonts need to be installed separately"? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

I guess I should have provided a reconstuction of how I came to ask what I asked: # zypper se -s font | egrep 'noto|robo' i | google-noto-fonts | package | 20151002-1.1 | noarch | OSS i | google-roboto-fonts | package | 20150820-1.1 | noarch | OSS # fc-list 'noto sans' style file family # fc-list roboto style file family /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Roboto-BoldItalic.ttf: Roboto:style=Bold Italic /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Roboto-ThinItalic.ttf: Roboto:style=Thin Italic /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Roboto-Light.ttf: Roboto:style=Light /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Roboto-Regular.ttf: Roboto:style=Regular /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Roboto-Thin.ttf: Roboto:style=Thin /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Roboto-Black.ttf: Roboto:style=Black /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Roboto-LightItalic.ttf: Roboto:style=Light Italic /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Roboto-Bold.ttf: Roboto:style=Bold /usr/local/share/fonts/Roboto-Regular.ttf: Roboto:style=Regular /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Roboto-Italic.ttf: Roboto:style=Italic /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Roboto-BlackItalic.ttf: Roboto:style=Black Italic /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Roboto-Medium.ttf: Roboto:style=Medium /usr/share/fonts/truetype/Roboto-MediumItalic.ttf: Roboto:style=Medium Italic # ls -l /usr/share/fonts/truetype/ | grep -i noto # rpm -qi google-noto-fonts Name : google-noto-fonts Version : 20151002 Release : 1.1 Architecture: noarch Install Date: Tue Nov 24 23:06:32 2015 Group : System/X11/Fonts Size : 4301 License : OFL-1.1 Signature : RSA/SHA256, Mon Oct 19 19:09:30 2015, Key ID b88b2fd43dbdc284 Source RPM : google-noto-fonts-20151002-1.1.src.rpm Build Date : Mon Oct 19 19:02:52 2015 Build Host : build71 Relocations : (not relocatable) Packager : http://bugs.opensuse.org Vendor : openSUSE URL : https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-fonts Summary : Noto Font Families Description : Noto's design goal is to achieve visual harmonization (e.g., compatible heights and stroke thicknesses) across languages. Distribution: openSUSE Factory # rpm -qi google-roboto-fonts Name : google-roboto-fonts Version : 20150820 Release : 1.1 Architecture: noarch Install Date: Wed Nov 25 02:09:40 2015 Group : System/X11/Fonts Size : 10229633 License : Apache-2.0 Signature : RSA/SHA256, Mon Oct 19 19:01:48 2015, Key ID b88b2fd43dbdc284 Source RPM : google-roboto-fonts-20150820-1.1.src.rpm Build Date : Mon Oct 19 19:01:27 2015 Build Host : cloud123 Relocations : (not relocatable) Packager : http://bugs.opensuse.org Vendor : openSUSE URL : https://www.google.com/design/spec/style/typography.html Summary : Mechanical yet friendly fonts originally designed for Android Description : The Android design language relies on traditional typographic tools such as scale, space, rhythm, and alignment with an underlying grid. Successful deployment of these tools is essential to help users quickly understand a screen of information. To support such use of typography, Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) introduced a new type family named Roboto, created specifically for the requirements of UI and high-resolution screens. This package contains the original Roboto sans-serif font, a condensed version of the sans-serif version, and a newer slab-serif version. Designer: Christian Robertson Distribution: openSUSE Factory # Nothing there did I recognize as indication the google-noto-fonts package I installed was a meta. Bruno Friedmann composed on 2015-11-25 07:13 (UTC+0100):

Felix Miata wrote:

...

http://download.opensuse.org/tumbleweed/repo/oss/suse/noarch/google-noto-fon... http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/13.2/repo/oss/suse/noarch/google-n... http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/leap/42.1/repo/oss/suse/noarch/goo...

...

are each less than 10k and contain neither otf nor ttf files. Is that expected? https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=951898 suggests not. If yes, what is the package for? If yes, where are they installed? rpm query seems to say package should contain fonts.

If you take the time to search on obs google-noto-fonts you will be able to find the package itself https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/M17N:fonts/google-noto-fonts

That URL doesn't provide anything on point I can grok.

A simple look in one of the build and the .changes https://build.opensuse.org/package/live_build_log/M17N:fonts/google-noto-fon...

will give you a clue. it's an empty/meta package,

Mercy. Long lists of unsorted strings like that make my head swim in confusion trying to figure out if what I want is present. It took some ingenuity to find what I wanted there. I was working on vty3. Is there a way I could have found that same information in that context? Don't you think another user who did what I did before asking here wouldn't reach a similarly confused state? Why don't all fonts packages have similarly constructed package names, such as starting or ending with fonts or ttf/otf, in order inhibit questions like mine?

noto-sans is what you're looking for no ?

It was, and likely will again unless cataloging changes. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:05:54 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:

Bruno Friedmann writes:

...

noto-sans is what you're looking for no ?

It's unfortunate that the package names don't end in -fonts like all other font packages.

Indeed, this must be an overlook. Petr, any reason to keep them without the -fonts suffix? Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:43:39 +0100, Petr Gajdos wrote:

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 09:11:37AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:

...

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:05:54 +0100,

...

It's unfortunate that the package names don't end in -fonts like all other font packages.

Indeed, this must be an overlook. Petr, any reason to keep them without the -fonts suffix?

I do not think so. Look at changes in M17N:fonts/google-noto-fonts and feel free to amend/submit.

While we're at it: should we keep the whole prefix google-*? That is, whether google-noto-emoji-fonts or noto-emoji-fonts. I think the latter is enough, but the former is clearer that it's a subpackage of google-noto-fonts. Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:00:10 +0100, Petr Gajdos wrote:

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:52:21AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:

...

...

I do not think so. Look at changes in M17N:fonts/google-noto-fonts and feel free to amend/submit.

While we're at it: should we keep the whole prefix google-*? That is, whether google-noto-emoji-fonts or noto-emoji-fonts. I think the latter is enough, but the former is clearer that it's a subpackage of google-noto-fonts.

I have no opinion on that. Feel free to add google- prefix.

My gut feeling is for the name without google-. It'd be too long. But I have no big preference, either, so asking here. Let's vote! :) Takashi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

Takashi Iwai composed on 2015-11-25 04:52 (UTC-0500):

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:43:39 +0100,

Petr Gajdos wrote:

...

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 09:11:37AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:

...

...

...

It's unfortunate that the package names don't end in -fonts like all other font packages.

...

...

Indeed, this must be an overlook. Petr, any reason to keep them without the -fonts suffix?

...

I do not think so. Look at changes in M17N:fonts/google-noto-fonts and feel free to amend/submit.

While we're at it: should we keep the whole prefix google-*? That is, whether google-noto-emoji-fonts or noto-emoji-fonts. I think the latter is enough, but the former is clearer that it's a subpackage of google-noto-fonts.

Why is the string google- in any font package name? Are any of Google's fonts called by fontconfig using string "google-"? I wish openSUSE (DW#4)[1] would align with what other major distros do. Archlinux (DW#9), Linuxmint (DW#1), Ubuntu (DW#3) & Debian (DW#2) all omit string google- from noto font package names. [1] DW#x is distrowatch.com rank BTW: http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Font/fonts-comps-commonweight.html is another page I created for comparing various common fonts over/under closely in identical context, this one focused on available weights. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

Frederic Crozat composed on 2015-11-25 11:43 (UTC+0100):

Felix Miata composed:

...

Takashi Iwai composed on 2015-11-25 10:52 (UTC+0100):

...

...

While we're at it: should we keep the whole prefix google-*? That is, whether google-noto-emoji-fonts or noto-emoji-fonts. I think the latter is enough, but the former is clearer that it's a subpackage of google-noto-fonts.

...

Why is the string google- in any font package name? Are any of Google's fonts called by fontconfig using string "google-"? I wish openSUSE (DW#4)[1] would align with what other major distros do. Archlinux (DW#9), Linuxmint (DW#1), Ubuntu (DW#3) & Debian (DW#2) all omit string google- from noto font package names.

And Fedora doesn't..

#5, after Mint, Debian, Ubuntu & openSUSE.

Seriously, who care ?

Who cares who made the font if the maker's name is not part of the font name used by apps and UI? Prefixing a font name with its maker's name is unhelpful more than helpful.

Each distribution has its own guidelines..

Does openSUSE even have guidelines for naming font packages? It would be great to have names that cause all fonts to be grouped together by prefixing fonts-, and if that can't be done, at least try to start the package name with the name fc-match and font management apps report. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

Jan Engelhardt composed on 2015-11-25 12:14 (UTC+0100):

I reject the idea of making openSUSE worse for the benefit of aligning with some state of another distro.

We chose to prefix the font name with a distinguishing vendor name of sorts, and there are at least two good backing reasons use such a scheme:

- different foundries can create the same font (with subtle differences, as always ;-)). Examples: * Adobe Courier; Monotype Courier

Both equally disgusting when appearing on a PC screen. :-)

- forks need to be considered. Examples: * lomt-raleway-fonts; impallari-raleway-fonts (later renamed) * google inconsolata and inconsolata DZ.

- different authors choosing a rather non-unique name for (completely different) fonts. No examples to date, since it does not occur as often as the other two.

If these outweigh the difficulty caused by their absence, then suffix rather than prefix, so people can find them by the names that they are called by apps and UI. While Google as a foundry might not be so bad because of its ubiquity, other foundries' names if not part of the calling name are likely to do little but obfuscate discovery. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org

Jan Engelhardt composed on 2015-11-25 13:11 (UTC+0100):

On Wednesday 2015-11-25 12:32, Felix Miata wrote:

...

...

- forks need to be considered. Examples: * lomt-raleway-fonts; impallari-raleway-fonts (later renamed) * google inconsolata and inconsolata DZ.

...

If these outweigh the difficulty caused by their absence, then suffix rather than prefix, so people can find them by the names

Your suggestion is a waste of everybody's time.

Inconsolata and all its variants can already be easily found, even by the hardest novices, through, among other things: - `ls -l *inconsolata*` (on DVD/NFS/FTP) - `zypper se inconsolata` - entering "inconsolata" into http://software.opensuse.org/ because they do a substring search.

Did you read the whole thread? http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-packaging/2015-11/msg00081.html explains what I tried before starting the thread. #1 I don't grok (I wasn't looking on DVD or NFS or FTP), only for files I expected to have been installed from the installed google-noto-fonts package. #2 failed as previously described. #3 requires a web browser with JS, where AFAIK in multi-user.target where I was working no can do. Nothing in what you quoted has anything to do with inconsolata. I was referring to forks, not specific names among what you last wrote. I was looking with zypper and ls for noto generically, not specifically noto sans, resulting in finding only a meta package that does not announce as a meta package. The difficulty of which I wrote was about also includes eye scanning through any list of hundreds or thousands of package names in which are peppered fonts that do not begin with string font. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org