[Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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=477479 Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #15 from Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com 2009-02-10 07:12:53 EDT --- new package has been approved and available on devel, F-10 and F-9 now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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=477479 --- Comment #14 from Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com 2009-02-04 08:49:11 EDT --- Ok, I see. Filed a package review for renaming. Bug#484042. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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=477479 --- Comment #13 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-02-03 03:50:42 EDT --- Just to explain that AFAIK the only difference between the two faces is in the non-Japanese glyphs, so it only affects apps where the font is explicitly chosen, eg openoffice and user config of fonts in other apps. VL Gothic is a fixed width font (ie Latin glyphs are half-width of Japanese character, so good for monospace) VL PGothic is variable width in Latin glyphs (so more natural for sans,serif) (Japanese glyphs are always fixed and full width) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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=477479 --- Comment #11 from Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com 2009-02-02 20:54:45 EDT --- hmm, so are you saying that gothic isn't a family name or just get rid of it because of duplicate to the project name? then what I should do in this package for new policy is just to make the package name lower-case. I'd a bit prefer vlgothic-proportional-fonts rather than vlgothic-p-fonts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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=477479 --- Comment #12 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-02-03 02:15:39 EDT --- read the naming guidelines carefully; you'll see we try very hard to avoid unnecessary repetitions, and to get something close to what the font files declare in their metadata -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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=477479 --- Comment #9 from Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com 2009-01-30 06:32:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) 1. if you have different font families, surely they declare different family names (or apps would not be able to select one instead of the other) ? 2. if they declare different family names, just use those names in the package naming 3. no proportional-gothic is not too long well, author declares its family names, VL Gothic and VL PGothic though. just making a package name as vlgothic-vl-gothic-fonts and vlgothic-vl-pgothic-fonts is redundant? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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=477479 --- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-30 08:33:08 EDT --- if you follow the documented naming rules you'll end up with vlgothic-fonts as srpm name and vlgothic-fonts vlgothic-p-fonts vlgothic-fonts-common as subpackage names (assuming you don't use a foundry prefix, you're the judge if one is necessary or what it can be) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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=477479 --- Comment #7 from Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com 2009-01-29 21:20:25 EDT --- I'm still trying to have a better name for subpackage. I'm quite not sure if we should treat a proportional designed gothic typeface as different font family name to gothic typeface. if we do, which name could we recognize as a family name? is pgothic a common sense for that as it's named? or should we have proportional-gothic as a family name? I impressed proportional-gothic is too long. if you have any suggestion, it would be appreciated. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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=477479 --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-30 01:45:54 EDT --- 1. if you have different font families, surely they declare different family names (or apps would not be able to select one instead of the other) ? 2. if they declare different family names, just use those names in the package naming 3. no proportional-gothic is not too long -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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=477479 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-14 13:38:19 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_%282009-01-13%29 — 2009-01-06: exact splitting rules http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_%282008-12-21%29 (packagers that can drop font files and just depend on an existing font package are not impacted) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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=477479 --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-11 10:20:37 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) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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=477479 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(nicolas.mail...@l | |aposte.net) | --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-07 04:23:27 EDT --- Those other pages that were approved yesterday by FPC (minutes not posted yet) may also be relevant for VLGothic http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_(2008-12-22) You probably want to perform the naming changes at the same time. To change a srpm naming, the current procedure is to orphan the old package in rawhide, and post a review request with the new name (I'll approve it as a matter of course if you do so) This will be discussed this evening by FESCO, you may want to add some input here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/RenamingPackages As for the upgrade path, you have two choices: 1. If there is a clear mapping between the old packages and the new packages, use obsoletes inside the packages 2. If there is not use a compat package to garbage collect the old packages as has been done for dejavu in rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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=477479 Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|ryo-dair...@users.sourcefor |ta...@redhat.com |ge.net | --- Comment #2 from Akira TAGOH ta...@redhat.com 2009-01-06 22:04:10 EDT --- will work on this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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=477479
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||477044
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2008-12-20
19:57:39 EDT ---
[Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented
form.]
This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or
several font files:
repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa'
--qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e
's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq
Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if
that's your case, you can close this bug report now.
Otherwise, you should know that:
— Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or
subpackage):
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages
— our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships
fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel
package:
–
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18)
– 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
Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can
use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to
rawhide please).
If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font
package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not
use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the
font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories.
It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though
it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora
11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family
The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe.
The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can
serve as examples:
❄ 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
If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them
on:
fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
