google-noto-fonts
No description set
- Developed at M17N:fonts
-
3
derived packages
- Download package
-
Checkout Package
osc -A https://api.opensuse.org checkout openSUSE:Factory/google-noto-fonts && cd $_ - Create Badge
Refresh
Refresh
Source Files
| Filename | Size | Changed |
|---|---|---|
| README.FAQ | 0000000812 812 Bytes | |
| README.maintain | 0000001175 1.15 KB | |
| _constraints | 0000000109 109 Bytes | |
| generate-specfile.sh | 0000008894 8.69 KB | |
| google-noto-fonts.changes | 0000012790 12.5 KB | |
| google-noto-fonts.spec | 0000165591 162 KB | |
| google-noto-fonts.spec.in | 0000002209 2.16 KB | |
|
notofonts.github.io-noto-monthly-release-24.7.1.ta |
1089254749 1.01 GB |
Latest Revision
Ana Guerrero (anag+factory)
accepted
request 1184766
from
Gordon Leung (Pi-Cla)
(revision 32)
- Update to 20230701 * Sans Kaithi, Sans Psalter Pahlavi, Serif Toto, Sans Nag Mundari, Sans Old Italic, Sans Old Sogdian, Sans Old Turkic, Serif Old Uyghur, Sans Masaram Gondi, Sans Hebrew, Sans Math, Sans Limbu, Sans Mandaic, and Sans Marchen have all received updates
Comments 4
Should this package be named as "noto-fonts"? Because all its sub-packages are prefiexed with noto- rather than google-noto-
Most font packages are prefixed with the name of the vendor/group/foundry. https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Fonts#Naming_and_Central_Font_Repository
If it should be prefixed with google-noto-, then all sub-packages should have the same prefix. It is a problem of inconsistent naming.
I would agree.