On 2021-10-21 02:01, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Have you managed to get this to work, or what is the particular issue?

Seeing "%fontmeta" in there reminds me of the unbreaking which I did back then for  adf-accanthis-fonts.

The upshot was that a packager suggested new font packaging macros which required a change in rpm (or base macros, don't remember), moved some font packages to the new macros and then rage-quit when the rpm changes were not accepted, leaving some font packages in a state of FTBFS. I unbroke the package above by undoing some changes, (maybe unnecessarily) removing %fontmeta, undong some %expand-magic and adding back "-a" to a few calls. I would hope that the current template leads to a working font spec for a simple font, but the templates might be from that mentioned phase, and I haven't checked whether the rpm side ever got changed. Maybe take this to font SIG?
_______________________________________________

Not yet.

I haven't got the time to fully work the spec file. Trying to generate a font specfile for testing purpose from rpmdev-newspec failed due to missing template even tough fonts-rpm-templates is already installed.

I will post on fonts mailing list and see what they will say.

-- 
Luya Tshimbalanga
Fedora Design Team
Fedora Design Suite maintainer