https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023977
Bug ID: 1023977 Summary: Use fc-cache /usr/share/fonts/<your font directory> instead of /usr/share/fonts Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Version: 7.0 Component: ghostscript-fonts Assignee: twaugh@redhat.com Reporter: twaugh@redhat.com QA Contact: qe-i18n-bugs@redhat.com CC: fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org, patrick.noffke@gmail.com, tagoh@redhat.com, twaugh@redhat.com Depends On: 1021757 Group: redhat
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1021757 +++
Description of problem: Running fc-cache with /usr/share/fonts takes too much time and may breaks the cache for parents when installing multiple font packages or upgrading fontconfig, especially sometimes happens on the installation say. As the macro in fontpackages does, please follow it up and use fc-cache /usr/share/fonts/<your font directory> instead of /usr/share/fonts.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): ghostscript-fonts-5.50-30.fc19.noarch
How reproducible: always
Steps to Reproduce: 1.rpm -q --scripts ghostscript-fonts-5.50-30.fc19.noarch 2. 3.
Actual results: postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): { mkfontscale /usr/share/fonts/default/ghostscript mkfontdir /usr/share/fonts/default/ghostscript fc-cache /usr/share/fonts } &> /dev/null || : postuninstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): { if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then fc-cache /usr/share/fonts fi } &> /dev/null || :
Expected results: the directory should be /usr/share/fonts/<your font directory> instead
Additional info:
--- Additional comment from Tim Waugh on 2013-10-22 04:51:41 EDT ---
For the postuninstall scriptlet too?
Is there anything planned for the Fedora Project packaging guidelines to make sure there are no regressions with this?
Does this change look correct?:
diff --git a/ghostscript-fonts.spec b/ghostscript-fonts.spec index d66fbaa..c2cbc3f 100644 --- a/ghostscript-fonts.spec +++ b/ghostscript-fonts.spec @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ Summary: Fonts for the Ghostscript PostScript interpreter Name: ghostscript-fonts Version: 5.50 -Release: 30%{?dist} +Release: 31%{?dist} # Contacted Kevin Hartig, who agreed to relicense his fonts under the SIL Open Font # License. Hershey fonts are under the "Hershey Font License", which is not what Fontmap # says (Fontmap is wrong). @@ -58,13 +58,13 @@ ln -sf %{fontdir} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{catalogue}/default-ghostscript { mkfontscale %{fontdir} mkfontdir %{fontdir} - fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts + fc-cache %{fontdir} } &> /dev/null || :
%postun { if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then - fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts + fc-cache %{fontdir} fi } &> /dev/null || :
@@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %ghost %verify(not md5 size mtime) %{fontdir}/fonts.scale
%changelog +* Tue Oct 22 2013 Tim Waugh twaugh@redhat.com - 5.50-31 +- Run fc-cache on our font directory, not the entire font collection + (bug #1021757). + * Wed Feb 13 2013 Fedora Release Engineering rel-eng@lists.fedoraproject.org - 5.50-30 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Mass_Rebuild
--- Additional comment from Nicolas Mailhot on 2013-10-22 05:23:13 EDT ---
(In reply to Tim Waugh from comment #1)
For the postuninstall scriptlet too?
Is there anything planned for the Fedora Project packaging guidelines to make sure there are no regressions with this?
Well, what the packaging guidelines actually say is that you shouldn't install any font without using fontpackages-devel templates and macros or splitting fonts per family, which means all font packages have the same implementation and there is no risk of single-package regression.
I appreciate that ghostscript antedates the consolidation work that went into current font packaging guidelines, but maybe it's time to align it with them?
Also TEX people have spent many years cleaning up and modernizing gs fonts. It would be worthwhile to package the tex gyre family and use them as replacement, dropping all legacy font formats and core font calls. I *think* tex gyre licensing is finally clean and safe (but you'd need to check with spot)
--- Additional comment from Tim Waugh on 2013-10-22 06:15:13 EDT ---
That's a fair point. :-)
That work might have to be done in step with urw-fonts.
--- Additional comment from Fedora Update System on 2013-10-22 06:27:51 EDT ---
ghostscript-fonts-5.50-32.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghostscript-fonts-5.50-32.fc19
--- Additional comment from Fedora Update System on 2013-10-22 06:28:34 EDT ---
ghostscript-fonts-5.50-32.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghostscript-fonts-5.50-32.fc20
--- Additional comment from Fedora Update System on 2013-10-22 14:51:18 EDT ---
Package ghostscript-fonts-5.50-32.fc20: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing ghostscript-fonts-5.50-32.fc20' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19682/ghostscript-fonts-... then log in and leave karma (feedback).
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1021757 [Bug 1021757] Use fc-cache /usr/share/fonts/<your font directory> instead of /usr/share/fonts