Re: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 à 17:17 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : To proof it some more I've separated the common macro, spec templates and directory definitions in a separate package, then modified three font packages to use it: — dejavu: multiple font families, multiple fontconfig files, — theokritos: single font family and fontconfig file, – vera: multiple font families and no config file It all works with the same macros, factors out the magic and reduces average font package complexity. (and hopefully the number of mistakes on has to correct in review) What do people think of it ? http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/ I've released a new version with some fontconfig templates added in. I hope Behdad will find some time to review them. -- 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: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
Le dimanche 09 novembre 2008 à 12:09 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : ▶▶▶ Proof of concept: Dejavu has been used to proof the concepts in rawhide (cf the wiki page) To proof it some more I've separated the common macro, spec templates and directory definitions in a separate package, then modified three font packages to use it: — dejavu: multiple font families, multiple fontconfig files, — theokritos: single font family and fontconfig file, – vera: multiple font families and no config file It all works with the same macros, factors out the magic and reduces average font package complexity. (and hopefully the number of mistakes on has to correct in review) What do people think of it ? http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/ Regards, -- 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: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
Let me go ask him for more details and get back to this list. If anyone in the list happen to know more about this, I would also be happen to learn from you. Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 à 09:55 -0500, Qianqian Fang a écrit : this is what I got from android's mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss/browse_thread/thread/3c60867cab66e23d/ab69c3174b63ca4c?#ab69c3174b63ca4c the replier is one of the google guys. I am not sure if this means we've got it clarified. Unfortunately, I think the licensing in the font metadata says otherwise, and I'm not sure if we want to rely on a google group message. Has the person replying you authority within android? ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
Nicolas Mailhot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: ▶ package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora users ... ▶ help spins and users Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias, without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a valid setup. This sounds like severe overkill. If they want different scripts, why not just adjust their fontconfig configuration? Realistically, I can't think of an example where we'd want to ship dejavu for one script but not another. Do you have one? It's not as if the split would save that much space on any normal install. Bill ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 à 12:10 -0500, Bill Nottingham a écrit : Nicolas Mailhot ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said: ▶ package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora users ... ▶ help spins and users Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias, without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a valid setup. This sounds like severe overkill. If they want different scripts, why not just adjust their fontconfig configuration? Realistically, I can't think of an example where we'd want to ship dejavu for one script but not another. Do you have one? Actually dejavu is a bad example because everyone wants it. I only did it because it's a complex and complete package that could stress the macros (also because it's my main package). But for the other font packages, it's very common to want only one font in a collection (for example all our artists use one mgopen font but not the others, we only need one font installed by default for each script to support it in the default install, etc). Also that makes dynamic font installation possible: when a document or web page references a font you can just install the corresponding package and not drag megs of unrelated fonts that just happened to be released by the same entity. -- 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
Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
Hi, If you've received this message directly (not via a list) you're concerned by the font package changes proposed for Fedora 11: — the changes touch one of your packages or — the changes touch/need one component you're lead on (comps, packagedb, rpm…) Please reply to the fedora fonts list however to keep the discussion in a single place. The complete list of proposed changes is published there http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes All is open to discussion, and it's on a wiki page, so don't hesitate to complete/correct it. This list is pretty ambitious and requires buy-in by many people to be executed properly. Not to mention that the Fedora 11 cycle will start soon. Please do respond to the list, stating: — your requests and comments (if any) — if you will change your packages along those lines for Fedora 11 — if you will allow other packagers to change your packages in your stead — if you totally object to one part of the proposal, and why Unless there is strong opposition I will apply those changes to my own packages (and to vera and liberation if their maintainers are ok with it). However, to be effective, other packagers must change their packages too. ▶▶▶ Short proposal summary: ▶ package renames, to fix the naming discrepancies that have crept in with the repository growth (different packagers followed different conventions) ▶ package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora users ▶ new comps groups, to group related fonts together (gfs fonts, sil fonts, etc) ▶ reminder of the ongoing fontconfig guidelines change (still waiting for fontconfig upstream to comment on) ▶ new packaging template and macros (to put in rpm? some other place?) ▶▶▶ Rationale: ▶ help spins and users Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias, without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a valid setup. ▶ help packagers and package reviewers Inconsistent repository and fuzzy rules mean package reviews drag on while the kinks are ironed out, which is not fun at all for everyone involved. Much better to have clear conventions packagers can identify before hitting review stage. ▶▶▶ Proof of concept: Dejavu has been used to proof the concepts in rawhide (cf the wiki page) I hope those proposals will be agreeable to everyone. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Fwd: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)]
[Of course I had to forget a few recipients] Message transféré Sujet: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:09:14 +0100 Hi, If you've received this message directly (not via a list) you're concerned by the font package changes proposed for Fedora 11: — the changes touch one of your packages or — the changes touch/need one component you're lead on (comps, packagedb, rpm…) Please reply to the fedora fonts list however to keep the discussion in a single place. The complete list of proposed changes is published there http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes All is open to discussion, and it's on a wiki page, so don't hesitate to complete/correct it. This list is pretty ambitious and requires buy-in by many people to be executed properly. Not to mention that the Fedora 11 cycle will start soon. Please do respond to the list, stating: — your requests and comments (if any) — if you will change your packages along those lines for Fedora 11 — if you will allow other packagers to change your packages in your stead — if you totally object to one part of the proposal, and why Unless there is strong opposition I will apply those changes to my own packages (and to vera and liberation if their maintainers are ok with it). However, to be effective, other packagers must change their packages too. ▶▶▶ Short proposal summary: ▶ package renames, to fix the naming discrepancies that have crept in with the repository growth (different packagers followed different conventions) ▶ package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora users ▶ new comps groups, to group related fonts together (gfs fonts, sil fonts, etc) ▶ reminder of the ongoing fontconfig guidelines change (still waiting for fontconfig upstream to comment on) ▶ new packaging template and macros (to put in rpm? some other place?) ▶▶▶ Rationale: ▶ help spins and users Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias, without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a valid setup. ▶ help packagers and package reviewers Inconsistent repository and fuzzy rules mean package reviews drag on while the kinks are ironed out, which is not fun at all for everyone involved. Much better to have clear conventions packagers can identify before hitting review stage. ▶▶▶ Proof of concept: Dejavu has been used to proof the concepts in rawhide (cf the wiki page) I hope those proposals will be agreeable to everyone. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
Hi, If you've received this message directly (not via a list) you're concerned by the font package changes proposed for Fedora 11: — the changes touch one of your packages or — the changes touch/need one component you're lead on (comps, packagedb, rpm…) Please reply to the fedora fonts list however to keep the discussion in a single place. The complete list of proposed changes is published there http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes All is open to discussion, and it's on a wiki page, so don't hesitate to complete/correct it. This list is pretty ambitious and requires buy-in by many people to be executed properly. Not to mention that the Fedora 11 cycle will start soon. Please do respond to the list, stating: — your requests and comments (if any) — if you will change your packages along those lines for Fedora 11 — if you will allow other packagers to change your packages in your stead — if you totally object to one part of the proposal, and why Unless there is strong opposition I will apply those changes to my own packages (and to vera and liberation if their maintainers are ok with it). However, to be effective, other packagers must change their packages too. ▶▶▶ Short proposal summary: ▶ package renames, to fix the naming discrepancies that have crept in with the repository growth (different packagers followed different conventions) ▶ package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora users ▶ new comps groups, to group related fonts together (gfs fonts, sil fonts, etc) ▶ reminder of the ongoing fontconfig guidelines change (still waiting for fontconfig upstream to comment on) ▶ new packaging template and macros (to put in rpm? some other place?) ▶▶▶ Rationale: ▶ help spins and users Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias, without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a valid setup. ▶ help packagers and package reviewers Inconsistent repository and fuzzy rules mean package reviews drag on while the kinks are ironed out, which is not fun at all for everyone involved. Much better to have clear conventions packagers can identify before hitting review stage. ▶▶▶ Proof of concept: Dejavu has been used to proof the concepts in rawhide (cf the wiki page) I hope those proposals will be agreeable to everyone. Regards, -- 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: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
Le dimanche 09 novembre 2008 à 16:42 +0200, Muayyad AlSadi a écrit : regarding arabeyes-kacst-fonts kacst fonts are not from arabeyes they are only hosted there the fonts are by www.kacst.edu.sa/default.aspx rpm -qi kacst-fonts-2.0-1.fc10.noarch ... from the King Abdulaziz City for Science Technology(kacst). I suppose that if kacst lets arabeyes distribute them they are not unfriendly with each other. Open Font Library likewise only re-distributes other people work, I guess the prefix in this case would mainly be there to denote some sort of oflb or arabeyes editorial work Anyway, duly noted, if more people feel karcst should not be prefixed I guess we'll make it and exception (but I'd love to have a clear simple common sense naming rule). arabeyes produce two types of fonts: core and decorative and I packed them for ojuba, here is the .spec file (attached) Some (but not all) of those fonts are currently in review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462711 You can either work with the current would-be packager (and become co-maintainer) or submit a competing proposal (some reviews never go anywhere, unfortunately, don't wait for others to do the stuff you care about). The path to get a font in Fedora is documented there: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle We mostly ask packagers to adhere as closely as possible to the official spec template, create a wiki page that can be referenced in release notes, and avoid bundling different fonts in a single package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Annotated_fonts_spec_template When there is little deviation from guidelines reviews tend to be quick (unfortunately the reverse is also true) I would love to maintain it for the fedora New font packagers are always welcome! Your spec is not acceptable as-is, but if you're motivated I think you'll find creating guidelines-conformant spec files is not too hard. Regards, -- 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
