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=477479
Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: VLGothic-fonts AssignedTo: ryo-dairiki@users.sourceforge.net ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: tagoh@redhat.com, ryo-dairiki@users.sourceforge.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 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=477479
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-12-20 19:57:39 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=477479
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ryo-dairiki@users.sourcefor |tagoh@redhat.com |ge.net |
--- Comment #2 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com 2009-01-06 22:04:10 EDT --- will work on this.
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=477479
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot@l | |aposte.net)
--- Comment #3 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com 2009-01-07 01:32:32 EDT --- What would you suggest subpackaging for this?
I guess current subpackaging may be not sufficient for new policy. as per policy, I'm going to have:
- VLGothic-fonts-common for docs etc. - VLGothic-fonts-gothic for VL-Gothic-Regular.ttf with Obsoletes: VLGothic-fonts < 20081203-2 - VLGothic-fonts-pgothic or VLGothic-fonts-proportional-gothic for VL-PGothic-Regular.ttf with Obsoletes: VLGothic-fonts-proportional < 20081203-2
Does it make sense?
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=477479
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot@l | |aposte.net) |
--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-07 04:23:27 EDT --- Those other pages that were approved yesterday by FPC (minutes not posted yet) may also be relevant for VLGothic http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(...) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_(2008-12-2...)
You probably want to perform the naming changes at the same time. To change a srpm naming, the current procedure is to orphan the old package in rawhide, and post a review request with the new name (I'll approve it as a matter of course if you do so)
This will be discussed this evening by FESCO, you may want to add some input here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RenamingPackages
As for the upgrade path, you have two choices: 1. If there is a clear mapping between the old packages and the new packages, use obsoletes inside the packages 2. If there is not use a compat package to garbage collect the old packages as has been done for dejavu 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=477479
--- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-11 10:20:37 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=477479
--- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-14 13:38:19 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=477479
--- Comment #7 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com 2009-01-29 21:20:25 EDT --- I'm still trying to have a better name for subpackage.
I'm quite not sure if we should treat a proportional designed gothic typeface as different font family name to gothic typeface. if we do, which name could we recognize as a family name? is "pgothic" a common sense for that as it's named? or should we have "proportional-gothic" as a family name?
I impressed "proportional-gothic" is too long. if you have any suggestion, it would be appreciated.
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=477479
--- Comment #8 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-30 01:45:54 EDT --- 1. if you have different font families, surely they declare different family names (or apps would not be able to select one instead of the other) ? 2. if they declare different family names, just use those names in the package naming 3. no proportional-gothic is not too long
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=477479
--- Comment #9 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com 2009-01-30 06:32:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8)
- if you have different font families, surely they declare different family
names (or apps would not be able to select one instead of the other) ? 2. if they declare different family names, just use those names in the package naming 3. no proportional-gothic is not too long
well, author declares its family names, VL Gothic and VL PGothic though. just making a package name as vlgothic-vl-gothic-fonts and vlgothic-vl-pgothic-fonts is redundant?
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=477479
--- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-30 08:33:08 EDT --- if you follow the documented naming rules you'll end up with vlgothic-fonts as srpm name and vlgothic-fonts vlgothic-p-fonts vlgothic-fonts-common as subpackage names (assuming you don't use a foundry prefix, you're the judge if one is necessary or what it can be)
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=477479
--- Comment #11 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com 2009-02-02 20:54:45 EDT --- hmm, so are you saying that "gothic" isn't a family name or just get rid of it because of duplicate to the project name? then what I should do in this package for new policy is just to make the package name lower-case. I'd a bit prefer vlgothic-proportional-fonts rather than vlgothic-p-fonts.
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=477479
--- Comment #12 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-02-03 02:15:39 EDT --- read the naming guidelines carefully; you'll see we try very hard to avoid unnecessary repetitions, and to get something close to what the font files declare in their metadata
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=477479
--- Comment #13 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-02-03 03:50:42 EDT --- Just to explain that AFAIK the only difference between the two faces is in the non-Japanese glyphs, so it only affects apps where the font is explicitly chosen, eg openoffice and user config of fonts in other apps.
VL Gothic is a fixed width font (ie Latin glyphs are half-width of Japanese character, so good for monospace) VL PGothic is variable width in Latin glyphs (so more natural for sans,serif) (Japanese glyphs are always fixed and full width)
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=477479
--- Comment #14 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com 2009-02-04 08:49:11 EDT --- Ok, I see.
Filed a package review for renaming. Bug#484042.
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=477479
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
--- Comment #15 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com 2009-02-10 07:12:53 EDT --- new package has been approved and available on devel, F-10 and F-9 now.
i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org