Hi Nathan, Am Dienstag, den 05.02.2019, 13:45 +0000 schrieb Nathan Willis: > (a) only makes sense within a limited context -- namely, the type of I think Adam has made quite clear in his initial announcement what the objectives of this meta-package will be. It is about (a) providing a reasonable set of fonts to start with (think of Serif, Sans and Mono in all of Regular, Bold, Italic and Bold-Italic), so you have enough to begin a heading/body type of text, (b) to be compatible with other operating systems (especially Windows standard fonts) and (c) to have a reasonably wide Unicode glyph coverage. Consider you are installing e.g. Windows 10. It will come with a lot of fonts that serve just that purpose. Some standard fonts for word processing, some legacy fonts for compatibility with older OS versions, some purel decorative fonts and some more fonts to cover even the most exotic glyphs. Someone at Microsoft has decided that this is a good choice of fonts to have on an average system and we want to provide the same service with the fonts-recommended meta-package. > (b) comes with the baggage that recommendations are inherently Of course this meta-package's dependencies will be purely subjective, but as more and more people (i.e. fonts-team members) modify its dependencies, it converges towards a "universally accepted recommendation" if something like this exists. > such examples in other parts of the archive? I really don't know. Yes, there are, e.g. in the games-finest meta-package. Cheers, - Fabian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part