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=477436
Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: padauk-fonts AssignedTo: mvaliyav@redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: mvaliyav@redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list@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=477436
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-12-20 19:56:42 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=477436
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-11 10:20:03 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=477436
--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-14 13:37:39 EDT --- FPC approved those two additional guidelines recently, please take them into account if you need to create or update a fonts package or subpackage:
– 2009-01-14: naming http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_%282009-01...
— 2009-01-06: exact splitting rules http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_%...
(packagers that can drop font files and just depend on an existing font package are not impacted)
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=477436
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Please convert to new font |[padauk-fonts] Please |packaging guidelines |convert to new 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=477436
--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-02-18 14:32:39 EDT --- This is a reminder for all the packagers that still have bugs open about adapting to font packaging guidelines there is only one month left before Fedora 11 beta: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/11/Schedule
A week of this month will see the Fedora 11 mass rebuild, that will load the build farm: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild
As already converted packages showed it is quite possible to make mistakes during the conversion. Please make releng and QA happy and don't wait till the last minute to do your changes (avoid pre-beta panic). If possible start before the mass rebuild so we don't burn cycles on incorrect packages.
The PackageKit enhancements stated for Fedora 11 assume fonts and font-using packages are sane (basically respect packaging guidelines). It is quite possible that not-converted packages will interact with the F11 font autoinstall feature in "interesting" ways. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AutomaticFontInstallation
We don't want that
There is extensive documentation on the wiki and most of your questions have likely already been answered there. Please do read the FAQ before making more work for the support team by asking questions answered there. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29
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=477436
--- Comment #5 from Minto Joseph mvaliyav@redhat.com 2009-02-23 01:28:04 EDT --- Hello,
Please have a look.
http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/padauk-fonts-2.4-2.fc1... http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/padauk-fonts.spec
Regards, Mintos
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=477436
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot@l | |aposte.net)
--- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-02-23 05:27:55 EDT --- Hi Minto,
Thank you for looking at it. You still have several leftovers from the previous templates (defines for common directories, etc). I suggest you do a diff with the latest /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-simple.spec in fontpackages-devel and try to reduce the delta.
Fontpackages 1.20 should be queued for all releases but if it's not hit a mirror next to you yet you can pull it directly from koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=7288
Also, please rename your package to sil-padauk-fonts as has already be done for the other SIL fonts. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_...
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=477436
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot@l |needinfo?(mvaliyav@redhat.c |aposte.net) |om)
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=477436
Minto Joseph mvaliyav@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(mvaliyav@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #7 from Minto Joseph mvaliyav@redhat.com 2009-03-24 06:42:38 EDT --- Hello,
I hope I have cleaned up the package pretty much. Please have a look..
http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-4... http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/sil-padauk-fonts.spec
Regards, Mintos
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=477436
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(mvaliyav@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #8 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-03-25 14:47:35 EDT --- This spec is mostly ok (you still have a stray define that needs to be changed to global)
The only bit which is really missing is the obsolete to provide users an upgrade path
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_...
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=477436
Minto Joseph mvaliyav@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(mvaliyav@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #9 from Minto Joseph mvaliyav@redhat.com 2009-05-25 08:48:47 EDT --- Hello,
Please check.
http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/sil-padauk-fonts.spec http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-5...
Regards, Mintos
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=477436
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-05-25 16:53:40 EDT --- This one is fine.
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=477436
--- Comment #11 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-05-25 16:54:38 EDT --- BTW you can use http://scripts.sil.org/Padauk as URL
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=477436
--- Comment #12 from Minto Joseph mvaliyav@redhat.com 2009-05-25 22:46:20 EDT --- Hello,
Changed the URL.
http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/sil-padauk-fonts.spec http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-6...
Regards, Mintos
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=477436
--- Comment #13 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-05-26 02:29:56 EDT --- APPROVED.
You can do the administrative bits in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_...
now
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=477436
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-14 02:18:46 EDT --- sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-6.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-6.fc12
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=477436
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-14 02:18:56 EDT --- sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-6.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-6.fc11
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=477436
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ON_QA
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-15 18:36:02 EDT --- sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-6.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update sil-padauk-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-10522
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=477436
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-11-04 07:09:47 EDT --- sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-6.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=477436
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |2.4-6.fc11 Resolution| |ERRATA
fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org