Hello,
I noticed Titillium typeface is unlisted in Gnome Software. How to include it? I tried to look at the documentation about the process but not available.
Thank you,
On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 10:49 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
Hello,
I noticed Titillium typeface is unlisted in Gnome Software. How to include it? I tried to look at the documentation about the process but not available.
Hey Luya, I see these fonts here:
https://github.com/hughsie/fedora-appstream/tree/master/appdata-extra/font
and there is appdata for them in /usr/share/app-info/xml/ on my system, but for some reason they still don't show up in gnome-software. Kalev and I briefly looked into it, but couldn't quite figure it out. I'll ask Richard to take a look tomorrow (he's off today).
On 6 October 2014 19:50, Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
I noticed Titillium typeface is unlisted in Gnome Software. How to include it? I tried to look at the documentation about the process but not available.
https://github.com/hughsie/fedora-appstream/tree/master/appdata-extra/font
These files are to set the long description for the font, and optionally also group together font faces together into families, e.g. so Lato Black gets paired up with Lato Hairline to form a "Lato" super-font.
and there is appdata for them in /usr/share/app-info/xml/ on my system, but for some reason they still don't show up in gnome-software. Kalev and I briefly looked into it, but couldn't quite figure it out. I'll ask Richard to take a look tomorrow (he's off today).
Unlike applications, the AppData for fonts only gets processed when the metadata is created using appstream-builder. This is because for applications there's a 1:1 relationship with .desktop files, but for addons like fonts the relationship can be n:1 or even 1:n.
So, back to the builder. I think this is the log file for Titillium: https://github.com/hughsie/createrepo_as_logs/blob/master/campivisivi-titill... -- which looking at the last entry seems to suggest (no <veto> tags) that it gets included in the metadata, at least for rawhide.
So, to check locally: vim /usr/share/app-info/xmls/fedora-21.xml.gz seems to suggest that Titillium should be present in gnome-software. So, running the latter in verbose mode I see;
(org.gnome.Software:9724): GsPlugin-WARNING **: failed to load cached icon Titillium-LightItalic.png: Failed to open file '/usr/share/app-info/icons/fedora-21/Titillium-LightItalic.png': No such file or directory
Not good, as that file does not indeed exist, although the others (e.g. Titillium-Black.png do). This kinda points to it being a metadata builder issue. I'll look more at this now.
Richard.
Hi,
I was looking into what I need to do to have my fonts in displayed in gnome-software. They all seem to fail with <veto>appdata required</veto>.
Am I correct in assuming that appdata for all (or almost all?) fonts is generated by https://github.com/hughsie/fedora-appstream/blob/master/appdata-tools/create... ? So should I add an appdata files for fonts I maintain, or is it enough to have them in https://github.com/hughsie/fedora-appstream/blob/master/appdata-tools/fonts....
Zbyszek
On Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:12:12PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 6 October 2014 19:50, Matthias Clasen mclasen@redhat.com wrote:
I noticed Titillium typeface is unlisted in Gnome Software. How to include it? I tried to look at the documentation about the process but not available.
https://github.com/hughsie/fedora-appstream/tree/master/appdata-extra/font
These files are to set the long description for the font, and optionally also group together font faces together into families, e.g. so Lato Black gets paired up with Lato Hairline to form a "Lato" super-font.
and there is appdata for them in /usr/share/app-info/xml/ on my system, but for some reason they still don't show up in gnome-software. Kalev and I briefly looked into it, but couldn't quite figure it out. I'll ask Richard to take a look tomorrow (he's off today).
Unlike applications, the AppData for fonts only gets processed when the metadata is created using appstream-builder. This is because for applications there's a 1:1 relationship with .desktop files, but for addons like fonts the relationship can be n:1 or even 1:n.
So, back to the builder. I think this is the log file for Titillium: https://github.com/hughsie/createrepo_as_logs/blob/master/campivisivi-titill... -- which looking at the last entry seems to suggest (no <veto> tags) that it gets included in the metadata, at least for rawhide.
So, to check locally: vim /usr/share/app-info/xmls/fedora-21.xml.gz seems to suggest that Titillium should be present in gnome-software. So, running the latter in verbose mode I see;
(org.gnome.Software:9724): GsPlugin-WARNING **: failed to load cached icon Titillium-LightItalic.png: Failed to open file '/usr/share/app-info/icons/fedora-21/Titillium-LightItalic.png': No such file or directory
Not good, as that file does not indeed exist, although the others (e.g. Titillium-Black.png do). This kinda points to it being a metadata builder issue. I'll look more at this now.
Richard.
devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On 14 October 2014 22:41, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl wrote:
I was looking into what I need to do to have my fonts in displayed in gnome-software. They all seem to fail with <veto>appdata required</veto>.
I'm going to work on documenting the font requirements today; I'll follow up with a blog post and some new instructions :)
Richard
On 15 October 2014 09:06, Richard Hughes hughsient@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to work on documenting the font requirements today; I'll follow up with a blog post and some new instructions :)
Okay, this is the results of a day hacking: http://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2014/10/15/gnome-software-and-fonts/
Feedback very welcome. If this looks reasonable, I'll top-post again to devel@fedora and the fonts mailing lists. Thanks.
Richard.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 02:51:39PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 15 October 2014 09:06, Richard Hughes hughsient@gmail.com wrote:
I'm going to work on documenting the font requirements today; I'll follow up with a blog post and some new instructions :)
Okay, this is the results of a day hacking: http://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2014/10/15/gnome-software-and-fonts/
Feedback very welcome. If this looks reasonable, I'll top-post again to devel@fedora and the fonts mailing lists. Thanks.
Hi,
maybe you could include some more information how the font appdata files themselves should look, as opposed to the one-level-up metadata files. E.g. I looked at the schema at http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/appdata/ and they don't seem to have the string "font" in them at all.
Some more examples would be good too. Does [1] look OK? appdata-validate complains about missing screenshots, are those necessary for fonts' appdata?
[1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/unifont.git/tree/unifont.appdata.xml
Richard.
devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On 15 October 2014 16:38, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl wrote:
maybe you could include some more information how the font appdata files themselves should look, as opposed to the one-level-up metadata files
Right, the examples I gave there are the actual files; that is the post-0.6 AppStream version which only works with Fedora > 20.
E.g. I looked at the schema at http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/appdata/ and they don't seem to have the string "font" in them at all.
Right, those are AppData files for applications, not MetaInfo files for fonts and addons. When F20 is EOL I'll update that page to the new metadata format.
Some more examples would be good too. Does [1] look OK? appdata-validate complains about missing screenshots, are those necessary for fonts' appdata?
Right; you need to use a metainfo file and a git version of appstream-glib to validate those. I only wrote the code 6 hours ago :)
[1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/unifont.git/tree/unifont.appdata.xml
Not appdata.xml, but metainfo.xml -- This is the patch I want to apply for lato:
diff --git a/lato-fonts.spec b/lato-fonts.spec index 0eb3837..e0f1fa8 100644 --- a/lato-fonts.spec +++ b/lato-fonts.spec @@ -64,9 +64,30 @@ install -m 0755 -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontconfig_templatedir} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_f install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf}
+# Add AppStream metadata +mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/appdata +cat > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/appdata/Lato.metainfo.xml <<EOF +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> +<!-- Copyright 2014 Richard Hughes <richard@hughsie.com> --> +<component type="font"> + <id>Lato</id> + <metadata_license>CC0-1.0</metadata_license> + <name>Lato</name> + <summary>A classical sans-serif font family</summary> + <description> + <p> + The semi-rounded details of the letters give Lato a feeling of warmth, + while the strong structure provides stability and seriousness. + </p> + </description> + <updatecontact>richard_at_hughsie_dot_com</updatecontact> + <url type="homepage">http://www.latofonts.com/</url> +</component> +EOF
%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.ttf %doc Lato2OFL/{OFL.txt,README.txt} +%{_datadir}/appdata/Lato.metainfo.xml
Richard