Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le lundi 30 novembre 2009 à 19:24 -0600, Matthew Woehlke a écrit : > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > When i18n asked what was the exact need for bitmap-fonts no one > answered. Bitmap-fonts is an exact package name installed by default for no reason anyone would justify > Legibility? > > I don't know about font systems, is Terminuis a "core font"? It is > bitmapped, but I don't know if that automatically makes it a "core > font". It does not make it automatically a "core font". Look, people, either take my word core fonts are bad, and induce maintenance, or make the effort to document yourself. -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Nicolas Mailhot wrote: When i18n asked what was the exact need for bitmap-fonts no one answered. Legibility? I don't know about font systems, is Terminuis a "core font"? It is bitmapped, but I don't know if that automatically makes it a "core font". -- Matthew Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies. -- Do not expose to extreme heat, cold, or open flame. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
2009/11/25 Nicolas Mailhot : > 5. The real users of this stuff never contributed a bit to this > maintenance, avoid answering questions when people ask something about > it, refused to write packaging guidelines to help others do this work > for them when (repeatedly) invited to, and react in a very hostile > manner when they get a single mail asking them to make some effort to > stop using this stuff (either patching it out, convincing their upstream > to do this change, or finding another non-core-fonts-using alternative > to package in Fedora, there are many possible solutions). They were > *not* asked to help cleaning up the font packages themselves, because, > after all this years of no action, it's pretty clear none of them want > to. I never intended to direct any hostility at you, Matěj, or any other person. I apologize for giving such an impression. I *did* intend to direct hostility at the script that mails out the nag messages. :-) But my reaction wasn't just to a single email. I have felt the noose tightening around my neck for some time now. I have posted to this list before about my woes as a package maintainer, and so to be nagged about what I have already described as the limitations I am forced to work within upset me. I think both of us feel backed into a corner we don't want to be in. That's bad, because people tend to become aggressively defensive in such situations. I've just dunked my head in a bucket of cold water to cool myself off, so let me try to give a dispassionate account of where I'm standing. Perhaps if we understand each other's positions better, we can find some way to get what we both want. For most of my upstreams, dropping to a single fallback core font is actually okay, because they are only using fonts at all to pop up an X window showing what they would otherwise display on the console. A single fixed-width font meets that need. My big problem is with XEmacs. It uses a variety of core fonts for different parts of its display. The display engine itself is very old code that no current developer understands thoroughly. An effort was made a few years ago to port our code to fontconfig + Xft. It worked just well enough that some people want it turned on by default, but it actually still has numerous problems (e.g., what the Release Manager calls "display turds", where a few pixels remain after a character is supposedly erased). Meanwhile, the developers who started that effort went on to other things and left the code in its unfinished state. No current XEmacs developer really has a good handle on that code, or what needs to be done to finish it. Therefore, I feel forced to continue building XEmacs in Fedora with the old core font code. The options I have been offered are, as I understand it, to: 1. Step up to help out with the maintenance of the core fonts. I don't know anything about any font system, legacy or modern, and precious little about X. I don't have even the faintest glimmer of a clue about how to start doing this. 2. Nag my upstream to fix their application. Well, I AM upstream, and no current developer knows how to finish this project. We would gladly accept help. 3. Fix the application myself. I don't know how to do this. My expertise lies in low-level systems work. I don't know much of anything about GUIs in general. 4. Orphan the package. As an upstream developer, this is my baby we're talking about. I would be VERY unhappy if XEmacs were to be dropped from Fedora. (Not that I expect anyone else to be concerned about my happiness; I'm just saying that I'm not very willing to do this.) I don't have a good option here. Given sufficient time, I believe we can stumble our way to a working fontconfig + Xft setup, and then it won't be a problem, but right now I can't really do anything about the situation. How long do we have before the core font packages are removed from Fedora? A month? A year? Two years? > In other words, they collectively expect someone else to do the ugly, > boring, and time-consuming work on the stuff they use, and BTW this > someone else should shut up about it and not remind them they behave > like parasites (let's call things by their real name). I believe that you just described what every package user expects of a package maintainer. That doesn't warrant calling the package users "parasites". -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 10:03:26 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > 5. The real users of this stuff never contributed a bit to this > maintenance, avoid answering questions when people ask something about > it, refused to write packaging guidelines to help others do this work > for them when (repeatedly) invited to, and react in a very hostile > manner when they get a single mail asking them to make some effort to > stop using this stuff (either patching it out, convincing their upstream > to do this change, or finding another non-core-fonts-using alternative > to package in Fedora, there are many possible solutions). They were > *not* asked to help cleaning up the font packages themselves, because, > after all this years of no action, it's pretty clear none of them want > to. In my case, glest development has a whole separate branch for what will eventually become the new glest, and I expect it is going to be a significant amount of time before that version will be worth packaging and in the mean time the version that is packaged isn't going to be getting upstream updates. chess' upstream is dead. However I am looking at becoming the new upstream (as ogre chess) pending my application for fedorahosted space being accepted. ogre development also seems to have moved on to the next version and the fonts are used in some samples they upstream may not worth feeling the need to change. So for any of these to change, it will probably need to be done by Fedora people. I have no knowledge of how to go about doing this even for simple cases. It would be really nice of someone could write up some documentation about how one might use fonts in the way expected for Fedora in at least simple cases, so us non-font specialist packagers would have a chance to help out. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Dne 27.11.2009 11:56, Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a): Just because Xft fonts are better does not mean core fonts are useless. Sure, nobody said that. If you need them, you are very free in helping to (re-)package them. Matěj -- http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mceplceplovi.cz GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC He loves nature in spite of what it did to him. -- Forrest Tucker -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 04:46:32PM +0100, Jochen Schmitt wrote: > If you mean the original bitmap oriented fonts of X11, so they are > several reasons to avoid the usage of this kinds of fonts. > > The may issue with this fonts is, that they are not scaleable to any > size you want. So what - perhaps the application doesn't need to scale the fonts to any size? Perhaps the application doesn't need to use anything other than 'fixed'? Just because Xft fonts are better does not mean core fonts are useless. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Dne 25.11.2009 10:03, Nicolas Mailhot napsal(a): If Matěj and others do their part I'll help them but that's all). So I suppose the only remaining course of action is to: When we are clear now, I want to be clear as well ... IMHO, fixing these bugs (http://is.gd/52X4m) is at least a week of full-time work for me (it probably includes some time learning the craft, so somebody else might do it faster). Given my current work preferences (especially love I get every day from abrt bugs), I don't expect to do anything about these bugs at least this year. Matěj -- http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mceplceplovi.cz GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC Besides, the determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language. -- Ed Post, Real Programmers Don't Use Pascal -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le mercredi 25 novembre 2009 à 10:03 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : > A. investigate if it's possible for a core fonts client to make sure it > only accesses the built-in backup core font. > > B. if not investigate it it's possible to write a small proxy lib with a > core-fonts-like api that do not let an app select any font but the > built-in backup core font Or even simpler, define a "magic" font name the core fonts system never resolves to anything else than the built-in font. -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le mercredi 25 novembre 2009 à 01:11 +0100, Matěj Cepl a écrit : > I think you didn't get the message ... you are very welcome (well, I > guess, you are) to fix packaging of those fonts (see bugs at > http://is.gd/52X4m). If you say, that somebody else should do the work > (I was looking at it whether I could help there, but my estimate was > something like a week of full time work), then let that somebody else to > decide whether it makes sense. Thanks Matěj To sum up the situation: 1. The long-deprecated core fonts ecosystem is composed of users, some code xorg side, and a large pile of font files this code accesses 2. The xorg code at at least one built-in backup font to use it are not going away 3. The large pile of core fonts, OTOH, is in bitrotting packages that didn't see real maintenance for a long time (were bitrotting way before the Fedora Core handover and were never cleaned up since). They still regularly fail and cause crashes that make a bad rep to Fedora fonts. 4. Some people like me and Matěj have been spending or were planning to spend some time trying to fix this. Not because we use this stuff, but because of some misplaced sense of duty. It is not fun stuff at all, however, and anything that helps reducing the enveloppe to fix is welcome news. 5. The real users of this stuff never contributed a bit to this maintenance, avoid answering questions when people ask something about it, refused to write packaging guidelines to help others do this work for them when (repeatedly) invited to, and react in a very hostile manner when they get a single mail asking them to make some effort to stop using this stuff (either patching it out, convincing their upstream to do this change, or finding another non-core-fonts-using alternative to package in Fedora, there are many possible solutions). They were *not* asked to help cleaning up the font packages themselves, because, after all this years of no action, it's pretty clear none of them want to. In other words, they collectively expect someone else to do the ugly, boring, and time-consuming work on the stuff they use, and BTW this someone else should shut up about it and not remind them they behave like parasites (let's call things by their real name). Given all this, I'm not motivated a lot to contribute to this work anymore (if I end up doing it it's because I promised people like Matěj help, not because I feel like helping core fonts users anymore. If Matěj and others do their part I'll help them but that's all). So I suppose the only remaining course of action is to: A. investigate if it's possible for a core fonts client to make sure it only accesses the built-in backup core font. B. if not investigate it it's possible to write a small proxy lib with a core-fonts-like api that do not let an app select any font but the built-in backup core font C. if A. or B. are true, orphan all the core font packages in Fedora, and give their current users the choice of : a. drop their core font use b. make sure they only access the built-in backup core font (possibly, writing B themselves) c. actually pick up the maintenance of the core fonts packages they use, starting with writing (and getting approved) clear guidelines how they should be packaged, then passing each of the core fonts packages they need through a thorough Fedora review (not let anyone re-import them in their current awful state, then sit up doing nothing about it) In others words, go through the orphan route that was suggested by others in this thread. (RHEL will of course make its own choices) -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Dne 24.11.2009 17:09, Jussi Lehtola napsal(a): However, there is still a justification for legacy software. Even if some utility only supported the ASCII code set, it would be stupid to bar its inclusion just because it doesn't support UTF-8, as it probably was not designed to serve that purpose. I think you didn't get the message ... you are very welcome (well, I guess, you are) to fix packaging of those fonts (see bugs at http://is.gd/52X4m). If you say, that somebody else should do the work (I was looking at it whether I could help there, but my estimate was something like a week of full time work), then let that somebody else to decide whether it makes sense. Matěj -- http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/, Jabber: mceplceplovi.cz GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC Ask yourself whether you’ve really obtained fullness of the Holy Spirit, follwed by gifts needed for your service. -- Francis MacNutt -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le mardi 24 novembre 2009 à 10:44 -0600, Chris Adams a écrit : > Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said: > > Le Mar 24 novembre 2009 17:01, Chris Adams a écrit : > > > That's not an answer. What is the real maintenance cost? > > > > I already explained yesterday : there are rotting Fedora Core packages to > > merge review, packaging guidelines to write to define how they are supposed > > to > > be cleaned up, a huge pile of existing fonts to re-check for licensing, a > > huge > > pile of fonts to re-check for technical soundness (ie a lot of fonts for > > that > > area are not encoded properly or declare bad names, should it continue to be > > hidden via manual fonts.dir or should they be converted to something > > cleaner, > > it we continue to go the manual fonts.dir way someone needs to review > > existing > > files) etc. > > And how much of this is still going to be done no matter what, since > core font support is not going to be dropped? You confuse core font support (=xorg code) and core fonts (= rotting font files that no one wants to maintain, and the associated fonts.dir indexes that break regularly) To keep core fonts support available anything but the built-in fonts (not the full historic xorg font suite, just the single fallback font built in xorg) can be dropped. Of course the packagers of the apps that use this stuff are going to howl, since it will reduce what their apps can do, but none of them have shown the slightest interest in contributing to the maintenance of the stuff they use so far (to keep things interesting a lot of said apps request fonts without checking they are actually available, and will crash if those fonts are not present. But that's not a core fonts support problem, that's a coding problem in those apps. They can be broken without technically removing core fonts support from Fedora). In fact one conclusion of this thread is that core fonts users are emphatically not interested in contributing to the stuff they use, and that it's better to remove the most rotten parts from Fedora, instead of keeping it, and continuing to wait for them to fix it. Like I said, this can be done without removing the xorg code Fedora is commited to maintain to keep X11 protocol compatibility. -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said: > Le Mar 24 novembre 2009 17:01, Chris Adams a écrit : > > That's not an answer. What is the real maintenance cost? > > I already explained yesterday : there are rotting Fedora Core packages to > merge review, packaging guidelines to write to define how they are supposed to > be cleaned up, a huge pile of existing fonts to re-check for licensing, a huge > pile of fonts to re-check for technical soundness (ie a lot of fonts for that > area are not encoded properly or declare bad names, should it continue to be > hidden via manual fonts.dir or should they be converted to something cleaner, > it we continue to go the manual fonts.dir way someone needs to review existing > files) etc. And how much of this is still going to be done no matter what, since core font support is not going to be dropped? -- Chris Adams Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le Mar 24 novembre 2009 17:09, Jussi Lehtola a écrit : uestions on the internet. > > Instead of ranting about legacy fonts that have been used for decades, > you can direct your energy towards something useful: making sure that > new fonts that are compatible with modern font handling systems are > correctly packaged. As I've already stated, I'm ready to ask the usefulness question to FESCO. But I don't owe you doing one and not the other if you don't want to help me so the other does not interferes with my main interest. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le Mar 24 novembre 2009 17:06, Jeremy Sanders a écrit : > > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > >> The costs could go down to nothing if there was no core font user left in >> Fedora > > Surely some are required for external legacy applications (including free > software and propitiatory applications)? If no one Fedora-side wants to do the work, this is a problem for RHEL. The Fedora xorg team as far as I've seen only checks the core fonts code stays operational and the built-in core fonts work. Current Fedora core fonts apps exercise much more than that. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le Mar 24 novembre 2009 17:01, Chris Adams a écrit : > That's not an answer. What is the real maintenance cost? I already explained yesterday : there are rotting Fedora Core packages to merge review, packaging guidelines to write to define how they are supposed to be cleaned up, a huge pile of existing fonts to re-check for licensing, a huge pile of fonts to re-check for technical soundness (ie a lot of fonts for that area are not encoded properly or declare bad names, should it continue to be hidden via manual fonts.dir or should they be converted to something cleaner, it we continue to go the manual fonts.dir way someone needs to review existing files) etc. We still had crashes this year due to problems in some fonts.dir. When i18n asked what was the exact need for bitmap-fonts no one answered. There is a need of someone that can answer other Fedora groups when such questions are asked. etc, etc -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 16:59 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Mar 24 novembre 2009 16:00, Chris Adams a écrit : > > What is the real maintenance cost? > > > > You have said that core fonts are not going away, so the maintenance > > cost will not go away. > > The costs could go down to nothing if there was no core font user left in > Fedora .. continuing the reasoning: if there were no packages in Fedora, the maintenance costs would vanish. However, there is still a justification for legacy software. Even if some utility only supported the ASCII code set, it would be stupid to bar its inclusion just because it doesn't support UTF-8, as it probably was not designed to serve that purpose. > > If you don't want to maintain something, then the normal way is to > > orphan it and let someone else take the job, not badger everybody else > > using the thing you don't want to maintain anymore. > > Does not work that way. If it was a clear package dependency, I could orphan > the stuff, and all the people who complain at me now would be forced to take > themselves in charge and do the work needed by the stuff they use. Because of > the brain-damaged way core fonts were specified, the dependency is not > expressed in that way and I can not stop caring about core fonts without > stopping caring about other fonts (because as long as I have a fonts hat, and > no one has a core fonts one, people come to me by default and don't want to > hear about differences in font systems). Don't fix what ain't broken. There are always st00p1d users asking silly questions on the internet. Instead of ranting about legacy fonts that have been used for decades, you can direct your energy towards something useful: making sure that new fonts that are compatible with modern font handling systems are correctly packaged. -- Jussi Lehtola Fedora Project Contributor jussileht...@fedoraproject.org -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > The costs could go down to nothing if there was no core font user left in > Fedora Surely some are required for external legacy applications (including free software and propitiatory applications)? Even logging into a remote old linux system will require the old font system. Jeremy -- http://jeremysanders.net/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said: > Le Mar 24 novembre 2009 16:00, Chris Adams a écrit : > > Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said: > >> To repeat myself once again, core fonts are not free, they have a > >> maintenance > >> cost, > > > > What is the real maintenance cost? > > > > You have said that core fonts are not going away, so the maintenance > > cost will not go away. > > The costs could go down to nothing if there was no core font user left in > Fedora That's not an answer. What is the real maintenance cost? -- Chris Adams Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le Mar 24 novembre 2009 16:00, Chris Adams a écrit : > > Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said: >> To repeat myself once again, core fonts are not free, they have a >> maintenance >> cost, > > What is the real maintenance cost? > > You have said that core fonts are not going away, so the maintenance > cost will not go away. The costs could go down to nothing if there was no core font user left in Fedora > How is badgering other maintainers a good thing? It is reducing the problem envelope. > If you don't want to maintain something, then the normal way is to > orphan it and let someone else take the job, not badger everybody else > using the thing you don't want to maintain anymore. Does not work that way. If it was a clear package dependency, I could orphan the stuff, and all the people who complain at me now would be forced to take themselves in charge and do the work needed by the stuff they use. Because of the brain-damaged way core fonts were specified, the dependency is not expressed in that way and I can not stop caring about core fonts without stopping caring about other fonts (because as long as I have a fonts hat, and no one has a core fonts one, people come to me by default and don't want to hear about differences in font systems). If you insist, I can ask formally FESCO if it thinks I do more harm than good. It it thinks so, I'll do the logical thing, and go back to being just the DejaVu maintainer, which was actually fun to do, and less time-wasting besides. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 24.11.2009 16:00, schrieb Chris Adams: > What is the real maintenance cost? > > You have said that core fonts are not going away, so the maintenance > cost will not go away. How is badgering other maintainers a good thing? > > If you don't want to maintain something, then the normal way is to > orphan it and let someone else take the job, not badger everybody else > using the thing you don't want to maintain anymore. > Unfortunately, I have not following the discussion about X core fonts and I'm not a font specialist. If you mean the original bitmap oriented fonts of X11, so they are several reasons to avoid the usage of this kinds of fonts. The may issue with this fonts is, that they are not scaleable to any size you want. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iJwEAQECAAYFAksL/8oACgkQZLAIBz9lVu/XVwQAqiDLEJfCAxFSTVRaXc2iCod8 buWz0rHqZ1EF2HrULNZP8/5f5XI6pOwmke1R52Zv/q29qWmIHTqTBSUByRfCsnbg 1D4SWmV3tLyiDnX8VyTjia5Qmd3gFVu+swWrZoErvOC0byW6HCFympdnM8pXfd/g ArpyT/VQiG5BpAWESAU= =K0tx -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said: > To repeat myself once again, core fonts are not free, they have a maintenance > cost, What is the real maintenance cost? You have said that core fonts are not going away, so the maintenance cost will not go away. How is badgering other maintainers a good thing? If you don't want to maintain something, then the normal way is to orphan it and let someone else take the job, not badger everybody else using the thing you don't want to maintain anymore. -- Chris Adams Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le Mar 24 novembre 2009 14:17, Felix Kaechele a écrit : > > Am 23.11.2009 22:50, schrieb Adam Williamson: >> He already said that he had talked to his upstreams and they had said >> they would not adjust their code. In that case, he really has done >> everything he possibly can in his position as maintainer, and sending >> him further nag emails is achieving nothing constructive and serving >> only to annoy him. > > And eventually may lead to packagers stopping to contribute to the > Fedora Project. > I do not wish to be used as a medium for a fight between a stubborn Font > Guideline Evangelist and a stubborn upstream. If it's upstream's > decision not to adjust their code then that's the way it is. If the > package does not cause any unexpected behavior by not following the Font > Guidelines there is nothing further I as a package maintainer am > required to do. To repeat myself once again, core fonts are not free, they have a maintenance cost, and none of the packagers that claimed using core fonts is not a problem so far has made the logical step of taking charge of what they say is no problem. Either it is no problem, and you are ready to take it out of my hands, or it is a problem, so stop pretending it is not and I'm unreasonable saying it is so. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Am 23.11.2009 22:50, schrieb Adam Williamson: He already said that he had talked to his upstreams and they had said they would not adjust their code. In that case, he really has done everything he possibly can in his position as maintainer, and sending him further nag emails is achieving nothing constructive and serving only to annoy him. And eventually may lead to packagers stopping to contribute to the Fedora Project. I do not wish to be used as a medium for a fight between a stubborn Font Guideline Evangelist and a stubborn upstream. If it's upstream's decision not to adjust their code then that's the way it is. If the package does not cause any unexpected behavior by not following the Font Guidelines there is nothing further I as a package maintainer am required to do. Felix -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 22:29 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 13:13 -0800, Adam Williamson a écrit : > > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 19:48 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 09:51 -0700, Jerry James a écrit : > > > > > > > 1) I'm going to nag you forever about a problem you can't fix. > > > > > > This is false, it can get fixed, either with code changes or by dropping > > > the offending package > > > > Maintainers do not equal developers. I am a package maintainer, yet my > > coding skills extend to copying and pasting things from Google results. > > usually incorrectly. You cannot assume that all the people to whom you > > are sending these mails have the capability to fix code problems, that > > is not a valid assumption. > > I don't assume they have the capability to fix code problems. > I assume they're ready to do their maintainer work and nag upstream till > it does. Or are ready to drop the package if it costs them more than > it's worth. He already said that he had talked to his upstreams and they had said they would not adjust their code. In that case, he really has done everything he possibly can in his position as maintainer, and sending him further nag emails is achieving nothing constructive and serving only to annoy him. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Nicolas Mailhot writes: > I don't assume they have the capability to fix code problems. > I assume they're ready to do their maintainer work and nag upstream till > it does. Or are ready to drop the package if it costs them more than > it's worth. You are assuming that upstream will agree that it's a problem. I don't have a horse in this race, since none of my packages contain any fonts. I will note though that my own response would involve procmail'ing these complaints to /dev/null. regards, tom lane -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 13:13 -0800, Adam Williamson a écrit : > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 19:48 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 09:51 -0700, Jerry James a écrit : > > > > > 1) I'm going to nag you forever about a problem you can't fix. > > > > This is false, it can get fixed, either with code changes or by dropping > > the offending package > > Maintainers do not equal developers. I am a package maintainer, yet my > coding skills extend to copying and pasting things from Google results. > usually incorrectly. You cannot assume that all the people to whom you > are sending these mails have the capability to fix code problems, that > is not a valid assumption. I don't assume they have the capability to fix code problems. I assume they're ready to do their maintainer work and nag upstream till it does. Or are ready to drop the package if it costs them more than it's worth. -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 13:09 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit : > As notting reminded me yesterday, we do not keep software out of Fedora > solely because it is crap. So, although it would be nice to port code that > uses core fonts to use fontconfig, it could be counter productive to list > them along with other problems discovered in font packages that we can and > should fix at the packaging level. You run the risk of getting the > script/email that's making these updates ignored even when it's reporting > genuine, fixable problems. I'll do the same offer I made a few years ago. Any of those who package bits that use core fonts step up to write packaging guidelines for core fonts, to do the merge reviews on the associated packages, and generally speaking to become the core fonts guy (or gal) in Fedora, can ask me to whitelist all the core font packages he wants or even to shut down this test completely. If no one is ready to do that, and is happy to continue to have me do this part because its "fonts" and by default "the fonts sig does fonts", should be happy it costs him only a few annoying mails that state I don't like it one bit. -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
On 11/23/2009 09:00 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 13:48 -0600, Chris Adams a écrit : Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said: Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 09:51 -0700, Jerry James a écrit : 1) I'm going to nag you forever about a problem you can't fix. This is false, it can get fixed, either with code changes or by dropping the offending package Core fonts are not going away, are they? The infra no, the fonts (or at least part of them) yes a) Who do you think you are to decide so? b) Any pressing _technical_ need to do so? Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 19:48 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 09:51 -0700, Jerry James a écrit : > > > 1) I'm going to nag you forever about a problem you can't fix. > > This is false, it can get fixed, either with code changes or by dropping > the offending package Maintainers do not equal developers. I am a package maintainer, yet my coding skills extend to copying and pasting things from Google results. usually incorrectly. You cannot assume that all the people to whom you are sending these mails have the capability to fix code problems, that is not a valid assumption. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 09:00:22PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 13:48 -0600, Chris Adams a écrit : > > Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said: > > > Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 09:51 -0700, Jerry James a écrit : > > > > 1) I'm going to nag you forever about a problem you can't fix. > > > > > > This is false, it can get fixed, either with code changes or by dropping > > > the offending package > > > > Core fonts are not going away, are they? > > The infra no, the fonts (or at least part of them) yes > > > Then why the hate for legacy > > packages using a legacy interface? > > The interface is legacy because it didn't work well, and we do not have > users sophisticated enough to undestand their font problems are caused > by their wandering in the legacy minefield land some packagers > recklessly expose. > As notting reminded me yesterday, we do not keep software out of Fedora solely because it is crap. So, although it would be nice to port code that uses core fonts to use fontconfig, it could be counter productive to list them along with other problems discovered in font packages that we can and should fix at the packaging level. You run the risk of getting the script/email that's making these updates ignored even when it's reporting genuine, fixable problems. -Toshio pgpV2QymXjIAw.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 13:48 -0600, Chris Adams a écrit : > Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said: > > Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 09:51 -0700, Jerry James a écrit : > > > 1) I'm going to nag you forever about a problem you can't fix. > > > > This is false, it can get fixed, either with code changes or by dropping > > the offending package > > Core fonts are not going away, are they? The infra no, the fonts (or at least part of them) yes > Then why the hate for legacy > packages using a legacy interface? The interface is legacy because it didn't work well, and we do not have users sophisticated enough to undestand their font problems are caused by their wandering in the legacy minefield land some packagers recklessly expose. -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhot said: > Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 09:51 -0700, Jerry James a écrit : > > 1) I'm going to nag you forever about a problem you can't fix. > > This is false, it can get fixed, either with code changes or by dropping > the offending package Core fonts are not going away, are they? Then why the hate for legacy packages using a legacy interface? -- Chris Adams Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 20:25 +0100, Andreas Bierfert a écrit : > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:50:19 +0100 > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > FYI I hate it. Only did it because I found no other way to move things > > forward. > > Maybe it is time to go for the extreme and help people convert there specs to > fulfill the guidelines In case you didn't notice, this is what happened two weeks ago. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:50:19 +0100 Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > FYI I hate it. Only did it because I found no other way to move things > forward. Maybe it is time to go for the extreme and help people convert there specs to fulfill the guidelines Na the thought is to crazy... - Andreas -- Andreas Bierfert, M.Sc.| http://awbsworld.de | GPG: C58CF1CB andreas.bierf...@lowlatency.de | http://lowlatency.de | signed/encrypted phone: +49 6897 1721738| cell: +49 170 9665206| mail preferred signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 13:44 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil a écrit : > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > On Monday, 23 November 2009 at 17:51, Jerry James wrote: > > [...] > >> I want a switch that says, "Yes, I know this application uses core > >> fonts. It isn't going to change. Shut up, please." > > > > +1. > > > > Nicholas, I know you love to write scripts that send mass emails, but > don't you think this is too much? FYI I hate it. Only did it because I found no other way to move things forward. Feel free to propose and implement a better way so I can stop mine. -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 09:51 -0700, Jerry James a écrit : > 1) I'm going to nag you forever about a problem you can't fix. This is false, it can get fixed, either with code changes or by dropping the offending package > 2) There is no way to make me stop nagging you. This is true > I want a switch that says, "Yes, I know this application uses core > fonts. It isn't going to change. Shut up, please." This won't make the problem go away. You may not care about it, but as long as I'll continue to find users pleas for help because of crappy core font use whenever I enter "fedora fonts" in Google, I'll continue to care. Stop the Internet from filling with those and I'll stop the mails. (see, I can be unreasonable too) -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Monday, 23 November 2009 at 17:51, Jerry James wrote: > [...] >> I want a switch that says, "Yes, I know this application uses core >> fonts. It isn't going to change. Shut up, please." > > +1. > Nicholas, I know you love to write scripts that send mass emails, but don't you think this is too much? Orcan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
Am 23.11.2009 17:51, schrieb Jerry James: I want a switch that says, "Yes, I know this application uses core fonts. It isn't going to change. Shut up, please." +1 Also see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507132 We subsequently removed the -tests subpackage because PHP Unit testing actually doesn't integrate well with fontconfig ;) Felix -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
On Monday, 23 November 2009 at 17:51, Jerry James wrote: [...] > I want a switch that says, "Yes, I know this application uses core > fonts. It isn't going to change. Shut up, please." +1. Regards, R. -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 AM, repo-font-audit wrote: > Dear packager, [snip] > To stop receiving this message, you need to: > 1. drop the font files or fix their packaging; > 2. relay the fonts issues to the fonts upstream to get them revised; > 3. work with the code upstream to improve the way it accesses font > files (usually by making it use fontconfig through a higher-level > text library such as pango, pango-cairo, harfbuzz, or QT) I maintain multiple packages that use core fonts. I do not have the expertise to migrate those packages, all of which are large and complex, to a new font system. I have neither the time nor the interest to gain that expertise. The upstreams, save one, have expressed 0 interest in doing that work themselves. The one that has expressed interest, XEmacs, currently has a half-baked fontconfig/Xft implementation that is stalled because the programmers that started it went on to other things without finishing it. So it appears to me that this message is really saying: 1) I'm going to nag you forever about a problem you can't fix. 2) There is no way to make me stop nagging you. I want a switch that says, "Yes, I know this application uses core fonts. It isn't going to change. Shut up, please." -- Jerry James, who thought he was doing the Fedora community a favor when he rescued gcl from the bit bin http://www.jamezone.org/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
