On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Paul Sladen wrote:
> > ... which is from before the renaming scheme started.
> > ...
> > ... Does it fit with the current naming scheme?
> I guess you didn't notice,
My apologies for not being more explicit. *In light of the on-going
naming scheme change*, I would appreciate some guidance on what to
call binary fonts of varying formats derived from the same (source)
typeface.
Having binary packages all called f-[f-]name but with different
contents (for example, TTF, vs. PSF) doesn't work. I would appreciate
some guidance, or suggestions on how to disambigute these. For
example the inclusion of 'psf-' or 'console-' as a prefix, or postfix.
> do the tools for building console fonts still exist in Debian?
On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2011, Paul Sladen wrote:
> > ... which is from before the renaming scheme started.
> > ...
> > ... Does it fit with the current naming scheme?
> I guess you didn't notice,
My apologies for not being more explicit. *In light of the on-going
naming scheme change*, I would appreciate some guidance on what to
call binary fonts of varying formats derived from the same (source)
typeface.
Having binary packages all called f-[f-]name but with different
contents (for example, TTF, vs. PSF) doesn't work. I would appreciate
some guidance, or suggestions on how to disambigute these. For
example the inclusion of 'psf-' or 'console-' as a prefix, or postfix.
> do the tools for building console fonts still exist in Debian?
http:// packages. debian. org/search? keywords= otf2bdf& searchon= contents packages. debian. org/search? keywords= bdf2psf& searchon= contents packages. debian. org/search? keywords= grub-mkfont& searchon= contents
http://
http://
...
-Paul