Re: FontAwesome 6.x inches closer

[Jerry James]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 10:09 AM Jonathan Wright  wrote:
> I just retired python-acme this morning in F38/39.  It's now built by the 
> certbot package.

Great, thank you for letting me know.
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: FontAwesome 6.x inches closer

[Jonathan Wright via devel]

I just retired python-acme this morning in F38/39.  It's now built by the
certbot package.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 11:02 AM Jerry James  wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 3:28 PM Jerry James  wrote:
> > The maintainers of the packages I am about to mention are BCCed on this
> email.
>
> And that is true of this email as well.
>
> > A couple of months ago, I talked about updating the fontawesome-fonts
> > package to version 6.x.  I want to give an update on where things
> > stand.  See https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/FontAwesome6/
> > for builds of affected packages.  All changes have been checked into
> > my forks of the affected packages (username "jjames").  Here's a quick
> > rundown of the changes.
>
> The FontAwesome 6 Change proposal was accepted.  I have created a side
> tag, have built both the new backwards compatibility
> fontawesome4-fonts package and  the updated fontawesome-fonts package
> in it.  I will start filing PRs momentarily for the other packages.
> Package maintainers, until the side tag is merged back into Rawhide,
> please use the following command to build the affected packages:
>
> fedpkg build --target=f39-build-side-65584
>
> As a reminder, these are the packages that will need to be changed and
> built:
>
> - cantata
> - dogtag-pki
> - freeipa
> - ipsilon
> - python-acme
> - python-f5-sdk
> - python-nbclassic
> - python-networkx
> - python-pydata-sphinx-theme
> - python-QtAwesome
> - python-sphinx_ansible_theme
> - python-streamlink
> - python-XStatic-Font-Awesome
> - R-fontawesome
> - sympa
> - texlive
>
> Once all builds are complete and the side tag has been merged into
> Rawhide, the fontawesome5-fonts package will be retired.  Let me know
> if you have any questions or concerns.
> --
> Jerry James
> http://www.jamezone.org/
>


-- 
Jonathan Wright
AlmaLinux Foundation
Mattermost: chat 
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: FontAwesome 6.x inches closer

[Jerry James]

On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 3:28 PM Jerry James  wrote:
> The maintainers of the packages I am about to mention are BCCed on this email.

And that is true of this email as well.

> A couple of months ago, I talked about updating the fontawesome-fonts
> package to version 6.x.  I want to give an update on where things
> stand.  See https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/FontAwesome6/
> for builds of affected packages.  All changes have been checked into
> my forks of the affected packages (username "jjames").  Here's a quick
> rundown of the changes.

The FontAwesome 6 Change proposal was accepted.  I have created a side
tag, have built both the new backwards compatibility
fontawesome4-fonts package and  the updated fontawesome-fonts package
in it.  I will start filing PRs momentarily for the other packages.
Package maintainers, until the side tag is merged back into Rawhide,
please use the following command to build the affected packages:

fedpkg build --target=f39-build-side-65584

As a reminder, these are the packages that will need to be changed and built:

- cantata
- dogtag-pki
- freeipa
- ipsilon
- python-acme
- python-f5-sdk
- python-nbclassic
- python-networkx
- python-pydata-sphinx-theme
- python-QtAwesome
- python-sphinx_ansible_theme
- python-streamlink
- python-XStatic-Font-Awesome
- R-fontawesome
- sympa
- texlive

Once all builds are complete and the side tag has been merged into
Rawhide, the fontawesome5-fonts package will be retired.  Let me know
if you have any questions or concerns.
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

FontAwesome 6.x inches closer

[Jerry James]

The maintainers of the packages I am about to mention are BCCed on this email.

A couple of months ago, I talked about updating the fontawesome-fonts
package to version 6.x.  I want to give an update on where things
stand.  See https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/FontAwesome6/
for builds of affected packages.  All changes have been checked into
my forks of the affected packages (username "jjames").  Here's a quick
rundown of the changes.

New packages:
- fontawesome4-fonts (a near-identical copy of the current
fontawesome-fonts package)
- python-accessible-pygments (needed for new python-pydata-sphinx-theme version)

Packages with significant changes, including version updates to get
upstream changes to the use of FontAwesome fonts:
- fontawesome-fonts (update to version 6.3.0)
- cantata (update to version 2.5.0)
- dogtag-pki
- python-f5-sdk
- python-nbclassic
- python-networkx
- python-pydata-sphinx-theme (update to version 0.13.0)
- python-QtAwesome (update to version 1.2.2)
- python-sphinx_ansible_theme (update to version 0.10.1)
- python-XStatic-Font-Awesome (update to version 6.2.1.1)
- R-fontawesome
- sympa

Packages where the only change is to replace this:
Requires: fontawesome-fonts
with this:
Requires: font(fontawesome)
- freeipa
- ipsilon
- python-acme
- python-streamlink
I did not build these packages in the COPR because the change is so
trivial.  This makes the dependency get version 4.x both before and
after the other changes.

Packages that do not need any changes because they already require
font(fontawesome):
- coq
- libgpuarray
- libsemigroups
- python-BTrees
- python-primecountpy
- python-sphinx_rtd_theme

In addition, texlive is changed by removing these lines from the
texlive-fontawesome subpackage:
# This is a bit of a lie, but I don't want someone who installs
texlive-fontawesome to wonder where their
# system fonts are.
Requires: fontawesome-fonts

I don't see any reason why we should spare people from learning the
difference between system and TeX fonts.  And anyway, there are lots
of other such system/TeX font pairs, and this wasn't done for them.
It wasn't even done for the texlive-fontawesome5 subpackage.

What remains to be done
--
The way the FontAwesome 6.x subpackages are split up seems to be
suboptimal.  First, nothing in Fedora wants just one of
fontawesome-6-brands-font, fontawesome-6-free-fonts, and
fontawesome-6-free-solid-fonts.  Every user wants all 3.  I only split
them up this way because I thought the Font Packaging Guidelines
indicated that must be done.  (See below.)  Now that I'm looking back
through them again, I'm not sure that is true.  I would like to merge
these 3 into a single package if the guidelines permit doing so.

Second, nothing in Fedora wants just one of fontawesome-fonts and
fontawesome-fonts-web.  Every user wants both.  I split them up this
way thinking the split would be helpful.  Now I don't think it is, so
I will probably throw away the fontawesome-fonts package and move its
contents into fontawesome-fonts-web.  Comments welcome.

Should we run this through the Change process?  At first I didn't
think so, because I was dealing with a small number of packages.
However, the more I have looked, the more cases of bundling I have
discovered, so this is turning into a bigger deal.  I'm starting to
lean towards making this a Change.  Opinions?

Finally, very few of the packages mentioned above comply with the Font
Packaging Guidelines, or at least my reading of them.  I have not
attempted to fix them, as that would blow this project up by at least
an order of magnitude.  The current guidelines
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/)
are, I am sure, a big improvement over the previous iteration.
However, in my opinion, they are not very accessible to people who are
not font experts.  They are long, complex, and (for me, at least)
difficult to understand.  It also doesn't appear that either packagers
or reviewers are, in general, very familiar with them.  We should do
something to make them more widely understood, for some definition of
"something".

I will be away from my Fedora computer for the rest of this week, so I
won't be able to actually do anything until next week.  However, I
should be able to read and respond to email on a mobile device with a
depressingly small screen.  It also tries to force me to top-post and
send HTML email.  Sorry about that in advance if it happens.

Regards,
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: