Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: cjkunifonts AssignedTo: cchance@redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: petersen@redhat.com, cchance@redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs@redhat.com Classification: Fedora
This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files:
repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*.fc[123456789](.*)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq
Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now.
Otherwise, you should know that:
- Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_i...
- our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(20...) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts
Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide.
If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories.
It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family
The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe.
The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts
If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-12-20 19:55:12 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.]
This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files:
repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*.fc[123456789](.*)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq
Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now.
Otherwise, you should know that:
— Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_i...
— our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(20...) – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts
Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please).
If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories.
It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family
The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe.
The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ❄ andika-fonts ❄ apanov-heuristica-fonts ❄ bitstream-vera-fonts ❄ charis-fonts ❄ dejavu-fonts ❄ ecolier-court-fonts ❄ edrip-fonts ❄ gfs-ambrosia-fonts ❄ gfs-artemisia-fonts ❄ gfs-baskerville-fonts ❄ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ❄ gfs-bodoni-fonts ❄ gfs-complutum-fonts ❄ gfs-didot-classic-fonts ❄ gfs-didot-fonts ❄ gfs-eustace-fonts ❄ gfs-fleischman-fonts ❄ gfs-garaldus-fonts ❄ gfs-gazis-fonts ❄ gfs-jackson-fonts ❄ gfs-neohellenic-fonts ❄ gfs-nicefore-fonts ❄ gfs-olga-fonts ❄ gfs-porson-fonts ❄ gfs-solomos-fonts ❄ gfs-theokritos-fonts ❄ stix-fonts ❄ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts
If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-06 02:26:44 EDT --- (note that the macros used in the new templates are integral part of the new guidelines)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Caius CHANCE cchance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
--- Comment #3 from Caius CHANCE cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-08 02:22:47 EDT --- built
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=77668
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|RAWHIDE |
--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-09 09:20:47 EDT --- Please use the %_font_pkg macro; its an integral part of the official font packaging guidelines.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
--- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-11 10:19:15 EDT --- To help packagers manage the transition to the new guidelines, we've published the following FAQ
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_other_packages_(FAQ)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Caius CHANCE cchance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot@l | |aposte.net)
--- Comment #6 from Caius CHANCE cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-11 23:13:18 EDT --- I added:
%_font_pkg -n uming -f *-ttf-arphic-uming*.conf uming.ttc
in .spec file. Then it isn't buildable since then with errors:
rpmbuild --define "_sourcedir /home/cchance/src/fedora/rpms/cjkunifonts/devel" --define "_spmake: *** [noarch] Error 1 ora/rpms/cjkunifonts/devel" --define "_builddir /home/cchance/src/fedora/rpms/cjkunifonts/devel" --define "_srcrpmdir /home/cchance/src/fedora/rpms/cjkunifonts/devel" --define "_rpmdir /home/cchance/src/fedora/rpms/cjkunifonts/devel" --define "dist .fc11" --define "fedora 11" --define "fc11 1" --target noarch -ba cjkunifonts.spec 2>&1 | tee .build--.log ; exit ${PIPESTATUS[0]} error: line 142: Second %post Building target platforms: noarch Building for target noarch
What would I need to do to get it work?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
--- Comment #7 from Caius CHANCE cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-11 23:15:07 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=328691) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=328691) .spec w/ %_font_pkg but not buildable.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot@l | |aposte.net) |
--- Comment #8 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-12 01:53:08 EDT --- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_other_packages_%28FAQ%29#Whe...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_other_packages_%28FAQ%29#Wha...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_other_packages_%28FAQ%29#The...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Caius CHANCE cchance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
--- Comment #9 from Caius CHANCE cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-14 01:33:15 EDT --- built w/ macro used
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=78415
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|RAWHIDE |
--- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-17 08:47:34 EDT --- FPC requested much stricter font package naming rules so some naming changes are in order too (sorry)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ)#fpc_renaming
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
--- Comment #11 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-18 16:21:17 EDT --- Some additional QA comments (appart from the naming issue)
— do not define a fontdir, use the %{_fontdir} provided by the fontpackages macro set — I think you'll find out if you check the descriptions of the resulting packages that they are a bit redundant — I'm almost certain Behdad would be horrified by all the legacy compat hackery cruft in this package. Please consider dropping some of it. Or at least move it to separate optional -compat packages — Please do not include the same files in the two subpackages; the multi-fonts official spec templates provides a common subpackage for this kind of stuff
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Caius CHANCE cchance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |i18n Depends on| |253813
--- Comment #12 from Caius CHANCE cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-19 01:17:08 EDT --- updated in cvs tree, requested rel-eng for fedora 11 tree of new package name
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253813
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Bug 477373 depends on bug 253813, which changed state.
Bug 253813 Summary: Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253813
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Bug 477373 depends on bug 253813, which changed state.
Bug 253813 Summary: Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese) [renamed to cjkuni-fonts] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253813
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
--- Comment #13 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-21 18:29:25 EDT --- Some comments on http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/cjkuni-fonts/cjkuni-fonts.spec?rev...
1. you do not need those in the -common subpackage or the fonts subpackages. Put them in the -compat subpackage only Conflicts: fonts-chinese <= 3.03-9.fc8 Obsoletes: fonts-chinese < 3.03-13 Obsoletes: ttfonts-zh_CN <= 2.14-10, ttfonts-zh_TW <= 2.11-28
2. your Obsoletes: %{name}-uming < 0.2.20080216.1-16
should be changed to Obsoletes: cjkunifonts-uming < 0.2.20080216.1-16
since your package %{name} is now cjkuni-fonts (same for ukai and compat)
Didn't see anything else obvious, of course testing the upgrade path yourself once the package is built is the best way to catch problems
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|cjkunifonts |cjkuni-fonts
--- Comment #14 from Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-21 21:27:26 EDT --- changed to cjkuni-fonts because of new naming rules
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot@l | |aposte.net)
--- Comment #15 from Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com 2009-02-02 18:48:12 EDT --- Patched in rawhide.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Flag|needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot@l | |aposte.net) |
--- Comment #16 from Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com 2009-02-03 20:18:23 EDT --- latest;
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=81269
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373
Bug 477373 depends on bug 253813, which changed state.
Bug 253813 Summary: Package Review: cjkunifonts (split from fonts-chinese) [renamed to cjkuni-fonts] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253813
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org