https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
Bug ID: 1258542 Summary: Review Request: hack-fonts - A typeface designed for source code Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: helio@kde.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://heliocastro.fedorapeople.org/hack-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://heliocastro.fedorapeople.org/hack-fonts-2.010-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: A typeface designed for source code Fedora Account System Username: heliocastro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |awilliam@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com ---
From the policy: "Fonts SHOULD be built from source whenever upstream provides
them in a source format" - upstream does appear to provide source here.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #2 from Helio Chissini de Castro helio@kde.org --- Yep
They have the source, but no instructions how to build it whatsoever. I just followed the same process used on Overpass Red Hat font, which has the source available, but same way, only the type faces are included.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #3 from Arun Raghavan arun@accosted.net --- Relevant: https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/issues/85
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |i@cicku.me
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng i@cicku.me --- NEW version released.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net --- (In reply to Helio Chissini de Castro from comment #2)
Yep
They have the source, but no instructions how to build it whatsoever. I just followed the same process used on Overpass Red Hat font, which has the source available, but same way, only the type faces are included.
This is ridiculous, the fonts are derived from DejaVu, and DejaVu build is completely scripted. The project just need to fork the build scripts like it forked everything else, and decide on a naming policy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
Fabio Alessandro Locati fabio@locati.cc changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fabio@locati.cc
--- Comment #6 from Fabio Alessandro Locati fabio@locati.cc --- I really hope to see this package in the main repo soon :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #7 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- Where are we in this review? Upstream is excited to get Hack into Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #8 from Helio Chissini de Castro helio@kde.org --- Updated SPEC and SRPM
https://heliocastro.fedorapeople.org/hack/hack-fonts-2.018-1.fc23.src.rpm https://heliocastro.fedorapeople.org/hack/hack-fonts.spec
Copr repo updated as well https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/heliocastro/hack-fonts/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #9 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- Any further update on this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
Helio Chissini de Castro helio@kde.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been denied with the reason: Review not approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been denied with the reason: Review not approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been denied with the reason: Review not approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been denied with the reason: Review not approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been denied with the reason: Review not approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been denied with the reason: Review not approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #16 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- I will do review since I want this font already. Expect a review for tomorrow.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |shawn.starr@rogers.com QA Contact|extras-qa@fedoraproject.org |shawn.starr@rogers.com
--- Comment #17 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- I'll just take this over if nobody is doing this, will ask for a review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #18 from Helio Chissini de Castro helio@kde.org --- Thanks Shawn. This was strangely forgotten.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #19 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- Before we can even move to package this, does anyone know how this is built? I've opened a ticket on upstream's github, Debian has this packaged but I don't see them doing any source builds of the fonts.
I need some clarification on our policy for this. Given Debian is even more severe for requiring sources, maybe Fedora should follow Debian's guide on this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #20 from Helio Chissini de Castro helio@kde.org --- Debian is using same approach as me, using the precompiled ttf/otf The only thing is that we're deploying only ttf and debian both ones.
And i personally don't know if worth pack the web fonts.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #21 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- Well, if it's acceptable to Debian surely this should be acceptable to Fedora, if not something seems wrong with our policy...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #22 from Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com --- Debian is not inevitably 'freer' than Fedora. Our requirements are more strict in some ways. Just because Debian doesn't (and, AFAICT, never has) required fonts to be compiled from source doesn't mean we're wrong in requiring this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #23 from Peter Oliver mavit@mavit.org.uk --- Upstream bug regarding building this font from source: https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/issues/227
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #24 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- I am in contact with upstream, they are looking at improving our ability to build the fonts from scratch. More on this when they get back to me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
Randy Barlow randy@electronsweatshop.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |randy@electronsweatshop.com
--- Comment #25 from Randy Barlow randy@electronsweatshop.com --- The Hack license is now acceptable for Fedora:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/...
Also, FWIW I could really use the web fonts for Bodhi (which is why I wanted to package Hack) so I would appreciate if you could include a subpackage with those files.
I'm willing to review this package if nobody else has a "claim" on reviewing it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #26 from Randy Barlow randy@electronsweatshop.com --- After reading the scrollback it does sound like Shawn is lined up to do the review so I'll defer, but I'm happy to be a standin. I'll memorize my lines.
My interpretation of the packaging rules is that SHOULD != MUST when it comes to building the font from source. The font guidelines do use the word "MUST" in other places so I take that to mean that this shouldn't block the package from getting into Fedora. It's obviously better if we build the font from source, but since there isn't a clear way to do that provided by upstream I don't think we have to wait for https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/issues/227 to be solved to get this into Fedora. I would recommend allowing the package in with the OTF files (and hopefully web files for me ☺) and then filing a BZ to build from source if possible later.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #27 from Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com --- Well, there's still the *general* packaging guidelines to consider. I don't think the font guidelines supersede those, in fact the section on packaging from source specifically references back to them. And they're quite specific about when you get an exception from the requirement to build from source.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #28 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- I've poked Chris on twitter, you can certainly help with packaging, it's always good to have co-maintainers.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #29 from Randy Barlow randy@electronsweatshop.com --- Adam, fair enough.
Shawn, if you don't want to deal with the web files I'd be happy to handle that part as a co-maintainer.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #30 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- Here is the tool can use to build the fonts
https://github.com/GoogleI18N/fontmake
We will need this packaged too as a dependency for building, if we want to build them now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
rugk 7d28c752@opayq.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |7d28c752@opayq.com
--- Comment #31 from rugk 7d28c752@opayq.com --- Any news here?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #32 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- I should have something soon, i'll put up a .spec for review this week.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #33 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu --- So I see this is still pending and I'm not completely sure why.
I understand that there's a desire to have these built from source, which requires some additional dependencies. However, fonts are considered by Fedora to be "content" and are explicitly listed as content: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Code_Vs_Content
The font-specific packaging guidelines mention that they should be compiled from source because most of the time they are buildable with free, packaged software and the existence of bytecode hinting engines does get close to the line of what might start looking like something which isn't content. However, it's just a "should", and lack of software needed to build it is a pretty good reason to violate one of those.
If anything I'd hope that the hack fonts could be imported now while work is ongoing to package the dependencies. In the future this package could switch over to building from source.
If the guidelines on this are confusing then I will be happy to work to get them changed to be less confusing.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #34 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- Upstream is changing how fonts are built now, which means we can use Open Source tools to build them. I'm waiting for them to finish some of those bits which are im progress right now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
Peter Oliver mavit@mavit.org.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1441023
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1441023 [Bug 1441023] Review Request: python-fontmake - Compile fonts from sources to binary
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #35 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- This is currently blocked from our other dependencies needed for python-fontmake and its sub-dependencies...
Upstream is appreciative in our efforts to get things packaged up.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1440971
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440971 [Bug 1440971] Review Request: python-pyclipper - Cython wrapper for the C++ translation of the Angus Johnson's Clipper library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #36 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- Note:
https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md
3.00 is released, but we're still blocked here...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542 Bug 1258542 depends on bug 1440971, which changed state.
Bug 1440971 Summary: Review Request: python-pyclipper - Cython wrapper for the C++ translation of the Angus Johnson's Clipper library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1440971
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #37 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- Not forgotten... I am seeing the reviews blocking this are getting closer to being done.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #38 from Jamie Mansfield jamie.mansfield.jm@gmail.com --- I've been working on getting Hack packaged in a satisfactory manor (I hope), its not 100% working yet - trouble at the last step (always the way -_-).
My solution to the lack of a 'fontmake' package, is to grab the dependencies from pip (in a virtual environment). This can easily be swapped out for the proper 'fontmake' package when the time comes.
This isn't a perfect solution, but it does solve the issue of compiling the font ourselves - input on this would be appreciated :) Hopefully we can get this into the repository swiftly.
On a final note, I haven't based this work of the original spec presented in this issue (I'd already begun working on my own) - looking at the original, there does seem to be some outstanding issues with it that are resolved by mine: - The source URL seems be be wrong on the original, referring to an old version (perhaps GitHub allows such dodgy usage) - Some of the metadata seems to be filled in wrong, specifically with regards to the licensing
Repository: https://pagure.io/hack-fonts SPEC File: https://pagure.io/hack-fonts/raw/master/f/hack-fonts.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #39 from Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com --- That's not acceptable under Fedora policies, I don't think. (As written it simply would not *work*, either, when you tried an official package build, as - by design - package builds run without network access).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #40 from Jamie Mansfield jamie.mansfield.jm@gmail.com --- Huh, wasn't aware of the package builds running without network access - will need to wait for fontmake to be introduced to a package then :S
At least the work is easily adaptable for when that happens - I'll look into the issue I'm having with ttfautohint and it should be a case of adding the appropriate required package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542
--- Comment #41 from Shawn Starr shawn.starr@rogers.com --- Yes, this is where we are at and why I've not been able to move on this...
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org