https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806272
--- Comment #18 from Parag Nemade <pnemade(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #14)
> However I'm not familiar with
> Fedora's font packaging and I'm only maintaining the weasyprint package for
> a few months so I'd be glad to know if the current weasyprint spec file
> needs changes. :-)
The “will fail if no fonts are installed” case could not be handled
gracefully in the past because default font groups existed solely in comps.
Now that we have proper default metapackages I believe depending on
'font(:lang=en)' would work better for you in current Fedora releases.
Though I don’t like much hardcoding a specific script.
langpack-core-fonts-any or font(:any) would be even better if those were
available
@parag: how would i18n prefer to handle this case?
we have langpacks-core-fonts-<langcode> packages to use. They provide
pre-defined default font for that <langcode>. If packages want to use
particular font package they need to pull it explicitly. But if there is no
such particular font demand then default langpacks-core-font-<langocode> can be
used.
I am still exploring how much new guidelines are compatible with older
packaging. (I was on vacation last few days) I see fonts-rpm-macros package
already provided older macros as well so old packages can be built using new
fonts-rpm-macros package. Yesterday I first tried to use new guidelines and
convert some fonts packages and there I found about change in directory
structure and fontconfig file format. Converting existing fonts packages to new
packaging guidelines will definitely take some time due to these changes. Right
now I am trying to understand how to write fontconfig xml files for new
packaging guidelines.
If I missed to address any question here please ask again.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.