On 11/19/2013 01:27 PM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
On 11/18/2013 08:47 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 11/18/2013 06:17 PM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
On 11/15/2013 05:43 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 11/15/2013 03:28 PM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
On 11/15/2013 02:40 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 11/15/2013 02:26 PM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
[...]
It's quite a lot of patches so I did not attach them here. You can
see
the code in my private repo:
<git://fedorapeople.org/~pvoborni/freeipa.git> branch 'rcue'.
Wow. Do we really need all these third-party fonts and styles in our
repo?
It's common in Web development to offer all versions and let the
browser
to choose one.
Since FreeIPA Web UI supports IE9+ we can safely reduce the font files
only to .woff fonts <http://caniuse.com/woff>. We can also discard all
Italic fonts (not used atm).
Fedora 20 has a new feature called Web Assets
<http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets> which should solve
such bundles. I'm not convinced that it's in usable state atm.
That doesn't answer the question of why we need third-party compiled
assets in the repo.
Fedora spec files can also have multiple Sources, if we need to bundle
for distribution.
I worry that it will be just source of build errors and such. For
example I would like to have access to the files during development
without running rpm build or using crystal ball to figure out what is
needed and where to get it.
A curious requirement, bundling everything in the Git repo. I'm afraid I
don't really understand your thinking here.
In the world I live in, a repo should contain upstream source files.
Third-party dependencies must be listed, and need to be installed for
building/using the project, and compiled artifacts should be compiled
from sources.
Having third-party compiled stuff means bundling, forking, and other
similar swear words.
Needing a crystal ball to locate the source is a packager's nightmare.
And this patchset put us in that situation, for any kind of checking if
these are up to date or what the licenses are.
Now I would suggest to use Bower <http://bower.io/> to solve it, but it
requires Node.js so I won't do that.
Here is some information about possible sources. Does it look usable to
you in any way?
1. Open Sans
- hard to find usable source, they should be in googlefontdirectory
<http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/> but that's 2.5GB+
Mercuial repo...
- some unofficial source (can be used by Bower):
<https://github.com/FontFaceKit/open-sans> It has a bit different
font-face declaration which would require additional changes
2. Overpass
- official distribution [1] contains only .ttf fonts
- .woff version is in git repo
<https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/overpass-fonts.git>
3. Font Awesome
- provides tarball <http://fontawesome.io/assets/font-awesome-4.0.3.zip>
- should not be a problem if I don't count .less files which required
some changes because lesscpy could not process them
So we have a fork there as well?
Did you try to submit the patch upstream?
So, now we need to package these so that we can depend on them, right?
At least that's how it works with any other project we want to depend on
if it's not in Fedora yet.
Fedora is not ready for packaging web libraries. We can continue with
the discussion after release of Fedora 21.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets#Scope
I must be reading the page wrong. For F20 it links to approved
guidelines[0] that explicitly say to use/link system fonts from
%{_datadir}/fonts, and packaging fonts elsewhere is prohibited.
Also web-assets is in f19, so only the httpd config is missing. As I
read it, we're supposed to provide that ourselves for now.
Until then we have to bundle unless we use system like aforementioned
Bower.
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Web_Assets#Fonts
--
Petr³
_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
