Package Details: apple-fonts 6-2

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/apple-fonts.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: apple-fonts
Description: Fonts for Apple platforms, including San Francisco and New York typefaces
Upstream URL: https://developer.apple.com/fonts/
Licenses: custom
Provides: ttf-font
Submitter: ilbuonmarcio
Maintainer: ilbuonmarcio (Bubbu0129)
Last Packager: ilbuonmarcio
Votes: 37
Popularity: 0.58
First Submitted: 2021-03-13 19:14 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2024-10-01 22:15 (UTC)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next › Last »

Bubbu0129 commented on 2024-06-14 12:46 (UTC)

I've updated the checksums for SF Symbols 6. Maybe the version number should be 6 now? I'm not sure, but we should align the version number with the upstream.

aliu commented on 2024-02-28 18:27 (UTC) (edited on 2024-02-28 18:27 (UTC) by aliu)

All the dependent packages (except the script extensions one Bubbu created) depend on the generic ttf-font meta package instead of this package itself. My package, otf-san-francisco-new-york, has 254 dependents (all from ttf-font), and these dependents have been there from last year, unlike this one where they all appeared last week :)

I think my package name is actually more searchable, and in any event replaces would capture all the existing users

ilbuonmarcio commented on 2024-02-28 14:34 (UTC)

Hi guys, sorry for the late join.

As I see it, it's best to keep this package as it is now, it has more history (early 2021) and lots of dependent package (255 as of today), other than a simple and more intuitive package name.

I'd rather join forces on this specific package (apple-fonts) so we can make it better together.

What do you guys think?

Bubbu0129 commented on 2024-02-28 14:25 (UTC)

OK, I get it. @ilbuonmarcio What do you think?

aliu commented on 2024-02-28 13:36 (UTC)

Yeah, the provides were what I was talking about.

AUR seems to favor names that are slightly more verbose.

Bubbu0129 commented on 2024-02-28 12:47 (UTC)

Well, IMO the "apple-fonts" name is good enough. It's pretty informative while being succinct. "otf-san-francisco-new-york" seems kinda verbose. All in all, the fonts contained are indeed the ones listed under Apple's fonts page. Ultimately, whether the naming should change is down to the main maintainer @ilbuonmarcio.

As of the conflicts=(), maybe subsets of the package should be listed in provides=()? The packages install the fonts in a separate directory (/usr/share/fonts/apple-fonts/), so no conflicts should be inflicted.

aliu commented on 2024-02-27 16:46 (UTC)

Maybe! How about your PKGBUILD under mine's name with my conflicts also included in the provides?

Bubbu0129 commented on 2024-02-27 14:13 (UTC)

@aliu My bad... Anyway, thanks for the correction! As this package provides essentially the same fonts as yours (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/otf-san-francisco-new-york), should the two merge?

aliu commented on 2024-02-27 12:47 (UTC)

You can copy the licenses from my PKGBUILD (maybe with attribution in yours?) which I extracted from the installation DMGs. They were originally .rtf's.

they don't contain a "monospace" family.

But SF Mono is included?

Bubbu0129 commented on 2024-02-27 04:53 (UTC)

@aliu As of the licenses, I found the ones for SF Pro and SF Compact on the upstream site (https://developer.apple.com/fonts/) by browsing the HTML source. The licenses of SF Mono and SF Text cannot be found there. Maybe their licenses are available on macOS, but I don't have Apple computers. And, IMO the fonts do not meet the 3rd criteria of provides=('ttf-font'), as they don't contain a "monospace" family.

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next › Last »