Overview
Do we really need TTF when OTF is available? Aren't they practically the same?
What was the reason of the rename at all? The package name suffix was the intended addition to distinguish between bitmap and vector fonts. IOW, do we have to rename it inevitably by some reason?
openSUSE:Factory nor M17N:fonts have not had any unifont-ttf/otf yet as far as I can tell, so there isn't really a rename to speak of.
Be aware that I only changed the name of the base package. The main reason for changing that package name was that this font is available in multiple formats (ttf/otf/pcf/bdf) and only resulting subpackages have the correspoding suffix for the format. With this SR users get ttf/otf with the following packages * gnu-unifont-ttf-fonts * gnu-unifont-jp-ttf-fonts * gnu-unifont-otf-fonts * gnu-unifont-jp-otf-fonts
A search for "otf-fonts" in TW already shows some results for otf subpackages ... * opengost * thessalonica * ... so I got the impression that there should be a separate package for the otf format fonts.
Upstream plans to deprecate ttf type fonts with the next release ... https://unifoundry.com/unifont/index.html (Change from TrueType to OpenType)
Then let's just omit TTF already; the package looks otherwise fine and I already have ideas for more improvements.
