On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
> Based on this thread, I will retire now this package.
That's should be save to do IMHO:
*
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hylafax+/c/4886f02ec6327a54488750acf4b9e05559a48460?branch=master
* https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDO
Based on this thread, I will retire now this package.
--
Zdenek Dohnal
Associate Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
- Mail original -
De: "David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]"
> If you wish, we could create a BlueJeans meeting
> (open for everyone) to go through these guidelines and fix them together.
> ;) I unfortunately don't have right to edit the wiki, nor I want to mess
> with something which you maintain(?).
Sorry for the delay in reply, vacation... Anyway, back to work! :)
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 6:25 PM, wrote:
>
>
> - Mail original -
> De: "David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]"
>
> > * Regarding the font family names and subpackages -- it's another mess.
> > Not just in Fedora (the FPG for fonts are rea
On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 10:17 AM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]
wrote:
> So, I have tried to rebuild 'hylafax+' with 'urw-base35-fonts' and it
> passed:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22352204
>
> I suggest we rebase it newer version (5.5 -> 6.0.6 -- the latest stable
> release is a
- Mail original -
De: "David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]"
> * Regarding the font family names and subpackages -- it's another mess.
> Not just in Fedora (the FPG for fonts are really outdated), but generally
> everywhere.
Since I wrote those, I'd like to qualify this:
1. Fedora basic packaging p
So, I have tried to rebuild 'hylafax+' with 'urw-base35-fonts' and it
passed:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=22352204
I suggest we rebase it newer version (5.5 -> 6.0.6 -- the latest stable
release is already 5 years old -- http://www.hylafax.org/content/Download),
rebuild it
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:51 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> I don't see a urw-base35-fonts SRPM in my RawHide ... has it
> been packaged?
>
Yes, it's in the Rawhide already:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/urw-base35-fonts
My mirror only fires weekly, but it seens ... hasty to retire
> a package
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 8:49 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am going to retire ghostscript-fonts package in F27 because its fonts
> are deprecated and replaced by urw-base35-fonts package. Only package
> which depends on ghostscript-fonts seems to be hylafax+ package, I
> created bugzilla for
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 9:51 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Oct 2017, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
>
>> Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>>
>> > I am going to retire ghostscript-fonts package in F27 because its fonts
>> > are deprecated and replaced by urw-base35-fonts package.
>
>
> I don't see a urw-base35-
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:54 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 10/06/2017 05:49 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>>
>> I am going to retire ghostscript-fonts package in F27 because its fonts
>> are deprecated and replaced by urw-base35-fonts package. Only package
>> which depends on ghostscript-fonts seems to b
Hi,
Thank you both for starting to clean up the awful mess that URW fonts had
become over time. It had come to the point they were totally unusable by
anything but a few apps that hardcoded them. They were tripping many many users
(countless why *awful things* happen as soon as I try to use one
On 10/06/2017 05:49 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
I am going to retire ghostscript-fonts package in F27 because its fonts
are deprecated and replaced by urw-base35-fonts package. Only package
which depends on ghostscript-fonts seems to be hylafax+ package, I
created bugzilla for it
https://bugzilla.re
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>
> > I am going to retire ghostscript-fonts package in F27 because its fonts
> > are deprecated and replaced by urw-base35-fonts package.
I don't see a urw-base35-fonts SRPM in my RawHide ... has it
been packaged?
My mirr
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez
wrote:
> Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
>
> > I am going to retire ghostscript-fonts package in F27 because its fonts
> > are deprecated and replaced by urw-base35-fonts package.
>
> NACK. They are _extra_ fonts:
> http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.gi
Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
> I am going to retire ghostscript-fonts package in F27 because its fonts
> are deprecated and replaced by urw-base35-fonts package.
NACK. They are _extra_ fonts:
http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=blob_plain;f=Resource/Init/Fontmap.GS
__
Hi,
I am going to retire ghostscript-fonts package in F27 because its fonts
are deprecated and replaced by urw-base35-fonts package. Only package
which depends on ghostscript-fonts seems to be hylafax+ package, I
created bugzilla for it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1499240 . Does an
17 matches
Mail list logo