Package Details: apple-fonts 6.0.1.1726709071-2

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: Bubbu0129
Votes: 39
Popularity: 1.55
First Submitted: 2021-03-13 19:14 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-01-06 12:19 (UTC)

Dependencies (1)

Required by (247)

Sources (4)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last »

Bubbu0129 commented on 2024-06-15 07:32 (UTC)

@ArcanusNEO I'm not having any issues building the package. *.pkg is a file, not a directory. I got an error message when running your patch.

Command Line Error:
Cannot find archive

ArcanusNEO commented on 2024-06-15 04:53 (UTC)

The file structure changes caused the build to fail. This patch can fix it:

diff --git a/PKGBUILD b/PKGBUILD
index 75dfd74..31ba1ad 100644
--- a/PKGBUILD
+++ b/PKGBUILD
@@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ prepare() {
         7z e "$archive" -y -osrc/
         cd src/
         7z x *.pkg -y
+        7z x *.pkg/Payload
         7z x 'Payload~'
         mv Library/Fonts/* "$srcdir/fonts/"
         cd "$srcdir"

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?

« First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last »