Re: Fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal
Le mardi 12 novembre 2019 à 09:00 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : > A fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal has been pushed to FPC > today: > https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/934 > > It should be clearer, more opinionated, and take into account: > – updates of The OpenType standard > – variable fonts > – web fonts > – upstream depreciation of non OpenType formats > – appstream & fonts > – weak dependencies > – and probably more I forget here And the proposal has now been approved by FPC: https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2020-02-13/fpc.2020-02-13-17.00.txt It shall soon replace the content in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/ and make it easier to create good font packages in Fedora. > It is based on the new fonts-rpm-macros project for automation: The associated review request is here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1803281 Depending on how long the review takes, some of the material in https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/builds/ may end up in Fedora 32, or slip to the next release. If it slips pre Fedora 33 font package changes will probably be limited to conservative updates. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal
Le mardi 12 novembre 2019 à 09:00 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : > Hi, > > A fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal has been pushed to FPC > today: > https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/934 > > It is based on the new fonts-rpm-macros project for automation: https://pagure.io/fonts-rpm-macros/ (it seems the link got omited while copying from pagure, I apologize for the bother, that was not intentional) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal
Hi, A fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal has been pushed to FPC today: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/934 It should be clearer, more opinionated, and take into account: – updates of The OpenType standard – variable fonts – web fonts – upstream depreciation of non OpenType formats: final stages of the Harfbuzz consolidation decided at the 2006 Text Layout summit https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/TextLayout/ – appstream & fonts – weak dependencies – and probably more I forget here It is based on the new fonts-rpm-macros project for automation: This project builds on tooling enhancements in redhat-rpm-config and rpm itself, done during the past two years for the Forge and Go sets of packaging macros. It started 2 years ago as a fork of fontpackages, which is the core of our current fonts packaging guidelines. It will require putting the fonts-srpm-macros package in the default build root, like is done for other domain-specific packaging macro sets. Major additions: – better documentation (clearer and more complete) – better automation (less packager hassle for better and more complete results) Major removals: – tools and scripts – fixing metadata with ttname Mostly because no one seems willing to maintain those scripts, or port ttname to python 3. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/builds/ showcases the new policy on 62 real-world source packages, generating 139 installation packages. Some of those are badly delayed updates to Fedora packages, others are brand-new packages ready for Fedora inclusion. They include major font packages such as Stix, DejaVu, Droid, IBM Plex. Existing Fedora packages will continue to build, the old fontpackages macros are grandfathered in fonts-rpm-macros for now. They will be removed in a few years to give packagers time to apply the new guidelines. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal
Le 2019-11-12 10:06, Akira TAGOH a écrit : On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:01 PM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Hi Akira https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/builds/ showcases the new policy on 62 real-world source packages, generating 139 installation packages. Some of those are badly delayed updates to Fedora packages, others are brand-new packages ready for Fedora inclusion. They include major font packages such as Stix, DejaVu, Droid, IBM Plex. That would probably be better covering all of the default fonts at least so we don't see any regressions by this major updates on the policy. Well I think I did my part here:) the copr covers all the font packages I maintain, and adds support for all the SIL and GFS fonts we had not packaged yet, and some more (like Plex). I don't have the time and energy to repackage everything by myself, and anyway that would not demonstrate that the new macros and guidelines are usable by anyone but myself (so, really, not so useful). I think the copr demonstrates that the technical implementation works, on a huge and diverse pool of real-world font projects. I spent a *huge* amount of time making those specs conform to the proposed packaging templates, dotting i's, slashing t's, going back to the drawing board any time the templates didn’t work out in practice, automating things that wasted my time as a packager. You can diff the guideline examples, the templates, and the implemented specs you'll see they are all identical, and can all serve as packaging examples Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:01 PM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/builds/ > > showcases the new policy on 62 real-world source packages, generating > 139 installation packages. Some of those are badly delayed updates to > Fedora packages, others are brand-new packages ready for Fedora > inclusion. They include major font packages such as Stix, DejaVu, Droid, > IBM Plex. That would probably be better covering all of the default fonts at least so we don't see any regressions by this major updates on the policy. The missing packages would be: - abattis-cantarell-fonts - adobe-source-code-pro-fonts - gnu-free-fonts - google-noto-fonts - google-noto-cjk-fonts - google-noto-emoji-fonts - jomolhari-fonts - lohit-assamese-fonts - lohit-bengali-fonts - lohit-devanagari-fonts - lohit-gujarati-fonts - lohit-kannada-fonts - lohit-odia-fonts - lohit-tamil-fonts - lohit-telugu-fonts - khmeros-fonts - paktype-naskh-basic-fonts - sil-abyssinica-fonts - sil-nuosu-fonts - sil-padauk-fonts - smc-meera-fonts - thai-scalable-fonts I don't have a time to work on it this week but may have some next week perhaps. > > > Existing Fedora packages will continue to build, the old fontpackages > macros are grandfathered in fonts-rpm-macros for now. They will be > removed in a few years to give packagers time to apply the new > guidelines. > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > ___ > fonts mailing list -- fo...@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to fonts-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/fo...@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Akira TAGOH ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal
Hi, A fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal has been pushed to FPC today: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/934 It should be clearer, more opinionated, and take into account: – updates of The OpenType standard – variable fonts – web fonts – upstream depreciation of non OpenType formats: final stages of the Harfbuzz consolidation decided at the 2006 Text Layout summit https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/TextLayout/ – appstream & fonts – weak dependencies – and probably more I forget here It is based on the new fonts-rpm-macros project for automation: This project builds on tooling enhancements in redhat-rpm-config and rpm itself, done during the past two years for the Forge and Go sets of packaging macros. It started 2 years ago as a fork of fontpackages, which is the core of our current fonts packaging guidelines. It will require putting the fonts-srpm-macros package in the default build root, like is done for other domain-specific packaging macro sets. Major additions: – better documentation (clearer and more complete) – better automation (less packager hassle for better and more complete results) Major removals: – tools and scripts – fixing metadata with ttname Mostly because no one seems willing to maintain those scripts, or port ttname to python 3. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/builds/ showcases the new policy on 62 real-world source packages, generating 139 installation packages. Some of those are badly delayed updates to Fedora packages, others are brand-new packages ready for Fedora inclusion. They include major font packages such as Stix, DejaVu, Droid, IBM Plex. Existing Fedora packages will continue to build, the old fontpackages macros are grandfathered in fonts-rpm-macros for now. They will be removed in a few years to give packagers time to apply the new guidelines. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal
Hi, A fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal has been pushed to FPC today: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/934 It should be clearer, more opinionated, and take into account: – updates of The OpenType standard – variable fonts – web fonts – upstream depreciation of non OpenType formats: final stages of the Harfbuzz consolidation decided at the 2006 Text Layout summit https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/TextLayout/ – appstream & fonts – weak dependencies – and probably more I forget here It is based on the new fonts-rpm-macros project for automation: This project builds on tooling enhancements in redhat-rpm-config and rpm itself, done during the past two years for the Forge and Go sets of packaging macros. It started 2 years ago as a fork of fontpackages, which is the core of our current fonts packaging guidelines. It will require putting the fonts-srpm-macros package in the default build root, like is done for other domain-specific packaging macro sets. Major additions: – better documentation (clearer and more complete) – better automation (less packager hassle for better and more complete results) Major removals: – tools and scripts – fixing metadata with ttname Mostly because no one seems willing to maintain those scripts, or port ttname to python 3. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/builds/ showcases the new policy on 62 real-world source packages. Some of those are badly delayed updates to Fedora packages, others are brand-new packages ready for Fedora inclusion. They include major font packages such as Stix, DejaVu, Droid, IBM Plex. Existing Fedora packages will continue to build, the old fontpackages macros are grandfathered in fonts-rpm-macros for now. They will be removed in a few years to give packagers time to apply the new guidelines. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal
Hi, A fonts packaging policy rewrite proposal has been pushed to FPC today: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/934 It should be clearer, more opinionated, and take into account: – updates of The OpenType standard – variable fonts – web fonts – upstream depreciation of non OpenType formats: final stages of the Harfbuzz consolidation decided at the 2006 Text Layout summit https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/TextLayout/ – appstream & fonts – weak dependencies – and probably more I forget here It is based on the new fonts-rpm-macros project for automation: This project builds on tooling enhancements in redhat-rpm-config and rpm itself, done during the past two years for the Forge and Go sets of packaging macros. It started 2 years ago as a fork of fontpackages, which is the core of our current fonts packaging guidelines. It will require putting the fonts-srpm-macros package in the default build root, like is done for other domain-specific packaging macro sets. Major additions: – better documentation (clearer and more complete) – better automation (less packager hassle for better and more complete results) Major removals: – tools and scripts – fixing metadata with ttname Mostly because no one seems willing to maintain those scripts, or port ttname to python 3. https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/builds/ showcases the new policy on 62 real-world source packages. Some of those are badly delayed updates to Fedora packages, others are brand-new packages ready for Fedora inclusion. They include major font packages such as Stix, DejaVu, Droid, IBM Plex. Existing Fedora packages will continue to build, the old fontpackages macros are grandfathered in fonts-rpm-macros for now. They will be removed in a few years to give packagers time to apply the new guidelines. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
