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=477332
Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: baekmuk-ttf-fonts 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 Blocks: 477044 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
After more than a month of consultation, feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved by FESCO.
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
Package maintainers must now convert their packages in rawhide to the new templates.
The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can serve as examples if the templates published in the fontpackages-devel package are not clear enough:
❄ 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
FPC and FESCO were not consulted on splitting or renaming packages, nevertheless the new templates make it fare easier to manage subpackages, so you're strongly encouraged to split your packages along font family lines.
A mandatory rule about splitting will probably be submitted for approval before the F11 release.
Further information on fonts packaging changes will be published on fedora-fonts-bugs-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=477332
Caius CHANCE cchance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
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=477332
Caius CHANCE cchance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |i18n Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
--- Comment #1 from Caius CHANCE cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-08 19:14:58 EDT --- built
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=77782
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=477332
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|RAWHIDE |
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-09 09:10:19 EDT --- Please use the %_font_pkg macro; its an integral part of the official font packaging guidelines.
That will require you to perform the mkfontdir stuff manually and probably put the fonts.scale files in a separate subpackage. Given all the problems we have with core X fonts doing this or even dropping fonts.scale altogether for this package is not necessarily a bad thing
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=477332
--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-11 10:19:05 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=477332
--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-14 13:36:31 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=477332
Caius CHANCE cchance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
--- Comment #5 from Caius CHANCE cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-18 23:50:12 EDT --- built w/ new naming and splitting rules
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=79288
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=477332
Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|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=477332
Nicholas Wourms nwourms@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nwourms@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Nicholas Wourms nwourms@gmail.com 2009-01-20 11:14:49 EDT --- Please update the publican package to reflect this change.
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=477332
--- Comment #8 from Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-20 18:06:16 EDT --- thanks mclasen: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=79589
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=477332
--- Comment #9 from Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-22 01:32:20 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=79738
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=477332
--- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-22 16:44:43 EDT --- Transaction Check Error: file /usr/share/fonts/baekmuk-ttf/fonts.scale from install of baekmuk-ttf-fonts-common-2.2-16.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package baekmuk-ttf-common-fonts-2.2-13.fc11.noarch
Your -common subpackage needs to obsolete baekmuk-ttf-common-fonts < 2.2-17
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=477332
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |quentin@armitage.org.uk
--- Comment #11 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-24 16:18:23 EDT --- *** Bug 481279 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
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=477332
--- Comment #12 from Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-26 19:39:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)
Your -common subpackage needs to obsolete baekmuk-ttf-common-fonts < 2.2-17
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=80378
Obsoletes: baekmuk-ttf-common-fonts < 2.2-17
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=477332
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
--- Comment #13 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-28 16:35:52 EDT --- This one seems ok in the few tests I ran, let's close
i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org