There was some evidence how we should follow for the font package naming
but it was dropped by 20983f3643f60e4c9ac769bc11189491042aae4a and
the reference became a dead link since then.
This isn't good thing because we are missing the reason why fonts-rpm-macros
behave like that. We still need an evidence in our policy.
There was some evidence how we should follow for the font package naming
but it was dropped by 20983f3643f60e4c9ac769bc11189491042aae4a and
the reference became a dead link since then.
This isn't good thing because we are missing the reason why fonts-rpm-macros
behave like that. We still need an evidence in our policy.