On Thu, 2004-07-08 at 11:39, Nadim Shaikli wrote: > > [1] http://bugs.arabeyes.org/cgi-bin/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65 > > They are not meaningless - the various fonts are grouped by the family > in which they belong (style, emphasis, look-n-feel, etc). As for the Doesn't the font name note that? For example, what does AAHS mean? I don't know. Does anyone know? Is there even a README file that explains this? Is this also a packager's job? > bug, I've noted in the past that its not something the font creators > should worry about (think about if/when someone shows-up that simply wants > to create/muck-with fonts and is not even into/using linux/unix and you'll > see what I mean). The PR noted along with the various missing files should No, I don't really know what that means. I have yet to see any system that has a deep heirarchy in how it stores the fonts.. either on linux or Windows even. They have files that act as a look-up table for that. > be something the packager ought to put together and the hierarchy should be > worked around (I'm sure its not that big of a deal to have some hierarchy, > I've seen some font packages with them though I can't remember which ones). > I'm not going to fight for this, it's not a big deal. I just think it makes a packager's job more difficult needlessly. If you are not going to change it, then please close the bug and tag it WONTFIX. Regards -- ------------------------------------------------------- | Mohammed Elzubeir | Visit us at: | | | http://www.arabeyes.org/ | | Arabeyes Project | Homepage: | | Unix the 'right' way | http://elzubeir.fakkir.net/ | -------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part