google-noto-fonts
No description set
- Developed at M17N:fonts
-
2
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 |
|---|---|---|
| LICENSE | 0000004377 4.27 KB | |
| README.FAQ | 0000000812 812 Bytes | |
| _constraints | 0000000109 109 Bytes | |
| fix-arimo.patch | 0000001019 1019 Bytes | |
| generate-fonts-and-specfile.sh | 0000004834 4.72 KB | |
| google-noto-fonts.changes | 0000009234 9.02 KB | |
| google-noto-fonts.spec | 0000161213 157 KB | |
| google-noto-fonts.spec.in | 0000002968 2.9 KB | |
| ttf.tar.gz | 0247024638 236 MB |
Revision 25 (latest revision is 29)
Dominique Leuenberger (dimstar_suse)
accepted
request 998725
from
Gordon Leung (Pi-Cla)
(revision 25)
fix: bsc#1202279 and gh#notofonts/Arimo#13 - fix-arimo.patch fix: summary and descriptions not mentioning font being Serif add: README.FAQ to answer some questions about Noto Fonts packaging
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.