[Bug 454078] Review Request: khmeros-fonts - Khmer free/libre font set created by Danh Hong of the Cambodian Open Institute
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: khmeros-fonts - Khmer free/libre font set created by Danh Hong of the Cambodian Open Institute https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454078 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-10 12:06 EST --- Please have the fonts SIG CC-ed, not me -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 454128] Review Request: Thibault-fonts - Collection of fonts from thibault.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Thibault-fonts - Collection of fonts from thibault.org https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454128 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-10 13:42 EST --- New (updated) Spec file: http://www.oslb.net/fonts/thibault-fonts-multisource.spec New (updated) SRPM file: http://www.oslb.net/fonts/thibault-fonts-0.1-1.fc9.src.rpm New (updated) RPM file: http://www.oslb.net/fonts/thibault-fonts-0.1-1.fc9.noarch.rpm -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 454174] Review Request: gfs-eustace-font - GFS Eustace majuscule Greek font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: gfs-eustace-font - GFS Eustace majuscule Greek font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454174
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-10 14:18 EST ---
Unofficial Review
- Rpmlint: OK
- Package name: OK
- Version: Based on a date: OK
- Specfile name: OK
- Packaging guidelines: OK
- Software license: OK
- License field in the spec file: OK
- License text from the source zip file included in %doc: OK
- The spec file is in American English: OK
- The spec file is legible: OK
- Source files the same as provided by upstream: OK
- Builds into a binary RPM; not architecture dependent, builds ok. OK
- No BuildRequires; doesn't depend on any libraries or tools besides the base
system: OK
- No locales, no need to use %find_lang: OK
- No shared libraries: OK
- Package not relocatable: OK
- Package owns all the created directories: OK
- No duplicates in %files: OK
- File permissions: OK
- Proper %clean section: OK
- Consistent macro use: OK
- No large documentation files, no -doc subpackage: OK
- Font doesn't need %doc files for operation: OK
- No header files, no -devel subpackage: OK
- No static libraries, no -static subpackage: OK
- No dependency on pkgconfig: OK
- No .la archives: OK
- Not a GUI app, no .desktop file: OK
- No other packages' files owned: OK
- rm -rf %{buildroot} is run at the beginning of %install: OK
- All filenames valid UTF-8: OK
Found few typos in the %description section in spec file.
millenium = millennium
sparce = sparse
--
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, or are watching someone who is.
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 454128] Review Request: Thibault-fonts - Collection of fonts from thibault.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Thibault-fonts - Collection of fonts from thibault.org https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454128 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-10 15:31 EST --- Engadget font dropped from package until legal status can be clarified. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
rpms/khmeros-fonts/devel - New directory
Author: spot Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/khmeros-fonts/devel In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/home/fedora/spot/CVSROOT/admin/tmpcvsY30198/rpms/khmeros-fonts/devel Log Message: Directory /cvs/extras/rpms/khmeros-fonts/devel added to the repository ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
rpms/khmeros-fonts Makefile,NONE,1.1
Author: spot
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/khmeros-fonts
In directory
cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/home/fedora/spot/CVSROOT/admin/tmpcvsY30198/rpms/khmeros-fonts
Added Files:
Makefile
Log Message:
Setup of module khmeros-fonts
--- NEW FILE Makefile ---
# Top level Makefile for module khmeros-fonts
all : CVS/Root common-update
@cvs update
common-update : common
@cd common cvs update
common : CVS/Root
@cvs checkout common
CVS/Root :
@echo ERROR: This does not look like a CVS checkout exit 1
clean :
@find . -type f -name *~ -exec rm -fv {} \;
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
rpms/khmeros-fonts/devel .cvsignore, NONE, 1.1 Makefile, NONE, 1.1 sources, NONE, 1.1
Author: spot
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/khmeros-fonts/devel
In directory
cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/home/fedora/spot/CVSROOT/admin/tmpcvsY30198/rpms/khmeros-fonts/devel
Added Files:
.cvsignore Makefile sources
Log Message:
Setup of module khmeros-fonts
--- NEW FILE .cvsignore ---
--- NEW FILE Makefile ---
# Makefile for source rpm: khmeros-fonts
# $Id: Makefile,v 1.1 2008/07/10 20:58:19 spot Exp $
NAME := khmeros-fonts
SPECFILE = $(firstword $(wildcard *.spec))
define find-makefile-common
for d in common ../common ../../common ; do if [ -f $$d/Makefile.common ] ;
then if [ -f $$d/CVS/Root -a -w $$/Makefile.common ] ; then cd $$d ; cvs -Q
update ; fi ; echo $$d/Makefile.common ; break ; fi ; done
endef
MAKEFILE_COMMON := $(shell $(find-makefile-common))
ifeq ($(MAKEFILE_COMMON),)
# attept a checkout
define checkout-makefile-common
test -f CVS/Root { cvs -Q -d $$(cat CVS/Root) checkout common echo
common/Makefile.common ; } || { echo ERROR: I can't figure out how to
checkout the 'common' module. ; exit -1 ; } 2
endef
MAKEFILE_COMMON := $(shell $(checkout-makefile-common))
endif
include $(MAKEFILE_COMMON)
--- NEW FILE sources ---
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 454128] Review Request: Thibault-fonts - Collection of fonts from thibault.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Thibault-fonts - Collection of fonts from thibault.org https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454128 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-10 20:34 EST --- Mock build provided new rpms: Spec: http://www.oslb.net/fonts/thibault-fonts-multisource.spec FC9 SRPM: http://www.oslb.net/fonts/thibault-fonts-0.1-1.fc9.src.rpm FC9 RPM: http://www.oslb.net/fonts/thibault-fonts-0.1-1.fc9.noarch.rpm FC8 SRPM: http://www.oslb.net/fonts/thibault-fonts-0.1-1.fc9.src.rpm FC8 RPM: http://www.oslb.net/fonts/thibault-fonts-0.1-1.fc9.noarch.rpm FC7 SRPM: http://www.oslb.net/fonts/thibault-fonts-0.1-1.fc9.src.rpm FC7 RPM: http://www.oslb.net/fonts/thibault-fonts-0.1-1.fc9.noarch.rpm -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
fonts package naming guideline
Nicolas brought up the point recently in a font package review that we should standardize the naming of our fonts packages to improve consistency. The proposal is to name all source packages in the form *-fonts. If we agree on this then I think the Fonts Packaging guidelines should be updated to explicitly reflect this policy. Here is a list of our source packages that do not currently end in -fonts: These old fonts packages should be renamed I guess: fonts-ISO8859-2 - ISO8859-2-fonts? fonts-KOI8-R - KOI-R-fonts? This should probably change: fonts-hebrew-fancy - fancy-fonts? (from culmus.sf.net) thaifonts-scalable (upstream name) - thai-scalable-fonts? The following are already in the process of disappearing from rawhide: fonts-arabic - pending removal fonts-hebrew -recent devel dead.package fonts-japanese - renamed to japanese-bitmap-fonts today A few others (*font*): efont-unicode-bdf - unicode-bdf-fonts? (maybe better to replace with GNU Unifont?) freefont (maybe this too?) terminus-font - terminus-fonts? 3, TeX fonts Probably TeX fonts are outside this discussion?: (tetex-fonts-hebrew, tex-fonts-hebrew, tetex-eurofont, tetex-font-cm-lgc, tetex-font-kerkis) Did I miss any? :) Jens ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: fonts package naming guideline
Le Jeu 10 juillet 2008 10:06, Jens Petersen a écrit : Hi, Nicolas brought up the point recently in a font package review that we should standardize the naming of our fonts packages to improve consistency. The proposal is to name all source packages in the form *-fonts. Actually I didn't want to push the idea just before leaving for a long vacation, but since it's on the table: 1. we've slowly been consolidating our font naming to foo-fonts packages 2. however we're still a long way from good consistency, such as the one achieved Debian and Ubuntu-side https://launchpad.net/~fonts/+packages (note I think some of their choices are not too good, for example using TTF when font formats change and indeed most modern fonts are OTF) 3. consistency is good for users, it helps them find and discover packages 4. consistency can not be achieved without deviating a little from upstream naming, since upstreams are widly inconsistent in their choices. If I had to propose a convention today that would be foundry-name-fonts (single package) foundry-name-fonts-sub (subpackage) Right now we're not far from it but just different enough to annoy users: 1. a few packages deviate from pure -fonts suffix 2. a lot of packages are inconsistent on the foundry bits (in particular sil fonts are packaged in many different ways) If we agree on this then I think the Fonts Packaging guidelines should be updated to explicitly reflect this policy. Here is a list of our source packages that do not currently end in -fonts: These old fonts packages should be renamed I guess: fonts-ISO8859-2 - ISO8859-2-fonts? fonts-KOI8-R - KOI-R-fonts? This should probably change: fonts-hebrew-fancy - fancy-fonts? (from culmus.sf.net) culmus-fonts-fancy (if it's a subpackage) culmus-fancy-fonts (if it's a standalone package) thaifonts-scalable (upstream name) - thai-scalable-fonts? thai-scalable-fonts :) The following are already in the process of disappearing from rawhide: fonts-arabic - pending removal fonts-hebrew -recent devel dead.package fonts-japanese - renamed to japanese-bitmap-fonts today A few others (*font*): efont-unicode-bdf - unicode-bdf-fonts? (maybe better to replace with GNU Unifont?) gnu-uni-fonts freefont (maybe this too?) gnu-free-fonts terminus-font - terminus-fonts? 3, TeX fonts Probably TeX fonts are outside this discussion?: I don't do TeX. I's sure lova for a TeX expert would join the SIG and contribute to dicussions. (tetex-fonts-hebrew, tex-fonts-hebrew, tetex-eurofont, tetex-font-cm-lgc, tetex-font-kerkis) Did I miss any? :) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: fonts package naming guideline
On 2008/07/10 14:05 (GMT+0200) Nicolas Mailhot apparently typed: If I had to propose a convention today that would be foundry-name-fonts (single package) foundry-name-fonts-sub (subpackage) Great way to annoy people who use GUI package managers. They generally when attempting to search for possible fonts to install will get at least 20 times as many packages not actually containing fonts as packages actually containing fonts. Since the results are generally sorted alphabetically, the packages actually containing fonts are scattered randomly among all the non-fonts packages. How's a person supposed to figure out what packages that contain fonts are available? And how many people actually care what foundry produced them? The right way, cross-distro- would be for all packages containing one or more fonts start 'fonts-', and all packages not containing fonts not start with 'fonts-'. e.g. fontconfig- fonts-bitmap- fonts-dejavu- fonts-freefont- fonts-ghostscript- fonts-liberation- fonts-urw- fonts-xorg-100dpi- xorg-x11-font-utils- -- Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry. Ephesians 4:26 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: fonts package naming guideline
Le Jeu 10 juillet 2008 16:46, Felix Miata a écrit : On 2008/07/10 14:05 (GMT+0200) Nicolas Mailhot apparently typed: If I had to propose a convention today that would be foundry-name-fonts (single package) foundry-name-fonts-sub (subpackage) Great way to annoy people who use GUI package managers. They generally when attempting to search for possible fonts to install will get at least 20 times as many packages not actually containing fonts as packages actually containing fonts. Good GUI package managers use repodata groups, either directly or indirectly (ie packagekit). Expecting a unified fonts- prefix is not workable with subpackages, short of performing deep rpm vodoo that makes the link to srpm un-obvious and confuses users in bugzilla. -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: fonts package naming guideline
On 10:46 Thu 10 Jul , Felix Miata wrote: Great way to annoy people who use GUI package managers. They generally when attempting to search for possible fonts to install will get at least 20 times as many packages not actually containing fonts as packages actually containing fonts. One could say such people should select some font category in their GUI pgk manager and then comfortably select right fonts. Or issue: yum groupinfo Fonts Just a matter of comps if the category includes non-font stuff. Michal ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: fonts package naming guideline
Le jeudi 10 juillet 2008 à 17:31 +0200, Michal Nowak a écrit : Or issue: yum groupinfo Fonts Just a matter of comps if the category includes non-font stuff. Unless I've made a mistake somewhere, our guidelines make very clear both that fonts packages must be declared in comps and how to makez that declaration. -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: fonts package naming guideline
On 14:15 Thu 10 Jul , Felix Miata wrote: As to the current state of the GUI package manager in F9, I have no idea what it looks like or can do, because starting KDE4 from KDM kills video or puts display to sleep in both KDE and all ttys ever since last updates on my Intel 845G. gpk-application The first fist-time-user will do is to click on Font. In case it works (s)he will get list of font. I don't understand your statement matter of comps. Nicolas pointed it in this tread already. Looks like a beginning of pointless flame, I am not going to go on in this thread. Michal ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
