El may 28, 2014 1:31 PM, "Bartłomiej Piotrowski" escribió:

On Sun, 25 May 2014 12:57:43 +0200 SanskritFritz wrote:

...

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:

...

I don't really understand the difference between community/ttf-droid and any of these: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&K=ttf-droid

Any idea about duplicates in there?

ttf-droid-sans Comment by graysky 2012-10-16 21:14 This is only the sans version; the package in [community] contains more flavors.

I'm a bit unsure if it's worth a standalone package. Unwanted files can be ignored via NoExtract in pacman.conf…

Not in this case. The packege in community should really be split into several different ones that reflect the style and width variants, namely normal vs codensed and sans vs serif.

On Wed, 28 May 2014 16:19:16 -0500 Pedro Alejandro López-Valencia wrote:

El may 28, 2014 1:31 PM, "Bartłomiej Piotrowski" escribió:

...

On Sun, 25 May 2014 12:57:43 +0200 SanskritFritz wrote:

...

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:

...

I don't really understand the difference between community/ttf-droid and any of these: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&K=ttf-droid

Any idea about duplicates in there?

ttf-droid-sans Comment by graysky 2012-10-16 21:14 This is only the sans version; the package in [community] contains more flavors.

I'm a bit unsure if it's worth a standalone package. Unwanted files can be ignored via NoExtract in pacman.conf…

Not in this case. The packege in community should really be split into several different ones that reflect the style and width variants, namely normal vs codensed and sans vs serif.

This way we should also split ttf-bitstream-vera, ttf-dejavu, ttf-freefont, ttf-liberation and ttf-ubuntu-family. Why limit ourselves to only normal, condensed and so on? Let's split bold and monoscape variants too, because it can save 15MB of our incredibly small hard drives. I'll wait a week with any further actions to see if fellow TUs have different opinion. -- Bartłomiej Piotrowski http://bpiotrowski.pl/

I thought he was being sarcastic, and was implying that we should delete it, because what is the point of saving a couple MB on removing a small portion of a font at the expense of more packages to maintain. Regards, Justin Dray E: justin@dray.be M: 0433348284 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Pedro Alejandro López-Valencia < palopezv@gmail.com> wrote:

El may 28, 2014 4:47 PM, "Bartłomiej Piotrowski" escribió:

...

On Wed, 28 May 2014 16:19:16 -0500 Pedro Alejandro López-Valencia wrote:

...

El may 28, 2014 1:31 PM, "Bartłomiej Piotrowski" escribió:

...

On Sun, 25 May 2014 12:57:43 +0200 SanskritFritz wrote:

...

On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Jerome Leclanche wrote:

...

I don't really understand the difference between community/ttf-droid and any of these: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?O=0&K=ttf-droid

Any idea about duplicates in there?

ttf-droid-sans Comment by graysky 2012-10-16 21:14 This is only the sans version; the package in [community] contains more flavors.

I'm a bit unsure if it's worth a standalone package. Unwanted files can be ignored via NoExtract in pacman.conf…

Not in this case. The packege in community should really be split into several different ones that reflect the style and width variants, namely normal vs codensed and sans vs serif.

This way we should also split ttf-bitstream-vera, ttf-dejavu, ttf-freefont, ttf-liberation and ttf-ubuntu-family. Why limit ourselves to only normal, condensed and so on? Let's split bold and monoscape variants too, because it can save 15MB of our incredibly small hard drives.

I'll wait a week with any further actions to see if fellow TUs have different opinion.

I can do it, if you don't mind having someone give you a hand with the task. I'm not a TU, obviusly.

On May 28, 2014 5:23 PM, "Pedro Alejandro López-Valencia" < palopezv@gmail.com> wrote:

El may 28, 2014 6:50 PM, "Justin Dray" escribió:

...

I thought he was being sarcastic, and was implying that we should delete it, because what is the point of saving a couple MB on removing a small portion of a font at the expense of more packages to maintain.

I am dead serious; that's what split packages are for.

We split packages to do things like: - avoid large documentation dumps in otherwise small packages - provide intercompatability with other packages - avoid recursive dependencies Splitting a font package to only provide specific weights or styles when they all come from the same source is really just a waste of time.

And don't think for a second I missed the obvious sarcasm.