Created attachment 398210 [details] open-sans-1.0.ebuild Initial version of ebuild in attach. I've don't guess the versioning rules for this case. «Open Sans An open font with 897 characters (and therefore enormous localization potential), Open Sans is our default typeface for websites, print and other materials.» https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/styleguide/communications/typefaces/ Probably this font should not only present in tree, but included in Mozilla (Firefox, …) RDEPEND list.
Hi Sergey, Nice work, but I think we should give credit to the people who made the font, rather than to a program that uses it. In that sense, I prefer a shorter version of the description below (from opensans.com): Open Sans is a clean and modern sans-serif typeface designed by Steve Matteson and commissioned by Google. Maybe "Open Sans is a sans-serif typeface designed by Steve Matteson" would be ideal for the ebuild. What do you think?
(In reply to Guilherme Amadio from comment #1) > Maybe "Open Sans is a sans-serif typeface designed by Steve Matteson" would > be ideal for the ebuild. We should not repeat the package name in the description. And I would prefer something a bit more descriptive than sans-serif (which can also be gleaned from the package name). How about: "A clean and modern sans-serif typeface designed for legibility across interfaces" (In reply to Sergey S. Starikoff from comment #0) > Probably this font should not only present in tree, but included in Mozilla > (Firefox, …) RDEPEND list. No. It is not a strict dependency. Besides, Mozilla offers it as a webfont in case it is not locally installed. Also, the ebuild doesn't have an actual download URI. And we can prevent using src_unpack by setting ${S} properly.
(In reply to Ben de Groot from comment #2) > (In reply to Guilherme Amadio from comment #1) > > Maybe "Open Sans is a sans-serif typeface designed by Steve Matteson" would > > be ideal for the ebuild. > > We should not repeat the package name in the description. And I would prefer > something a bit more descriptive than sans-serif (which can also be gleaned > from the package name). > > How about: "A clean and modern sans-serif typeface designed for legibility > across interfaces" Sure, this description sounds pretty good too.
(In reply to Ben de Groot from comment #2) > How about: "A clean and modern sans-serif typeface designed for legibility > across interfaces" Excellent variant for short description. > (In reply to Sergey S. Starikoff from comment #0) > > Probably this font should not only present in tree, but included in Mozilla > > (Firefox, …) RDEPEND list. > > No. It is not a strict dependency. Besides, Mozilla offers it as a webfont > in case it is not locally installed. Of course it is NOT a strict dependency. But I think it may be conditional use-managed dependency - I've find this font following question to display in FireFox 35. Local installation of this font fixes issue (maybe something wrong or incomplete in Gentoo's build of FireFox). > Also, the ebuild doesn't have an actual download URI. And we can prevent > using src_unpack by setting ${S} properly. It is because of filename mismatch of two known distfiles archives. (In reply to Guilherme Amadio from comment #1) > Nice work, but I think we should give credit to the people who made the > font, rather than to a program that uses it. In SRC_URI — of course we should make credit for those, who made font. But to my mind in full description we should place also note from Mozilla, as popular project, which recommends to use the font.
+ 29 Mar 2015; Ben de Groot <yngwin@gentoo.org> +metadata.xml, + +open-sans-1.ebuild: + Initial commit from bug #542332
