On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Behdad Esfahbod beh...@behdad.org wrote:
Where's the code? The github link seems to be broken.
Sorry for the delay on that. The code is now here:
https://github.com/tchollingsworth/ttname
And it's already in Rawhide, F20, and F18-19 updates-testing.
See the
Le Dim 4 août 2013 10:44, Till Maas a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 07:54:38PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 19:26, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit :
AFAICS it shouldn't be too hard to script up something so this would
as easy as `fixfontmd --copyright $(head -n3
Le Mar 6 août 2013 23:48, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit :
There's already some example instructions on how to use ttname here,
which accurately reflects the CLI interface as it is now implemented:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/ttname
also please keep the fonts list in CC when
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:52:53PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Dim 4 août 2013 10:44, Till Maas a écrit :
The guideline should be to ask upstream to fix the meta data. In case of
missing license text (e.g. source code with a GPL header but no copy of
the GPL itself), it is also
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:23 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
tchollingswo...@gmail.com wrote:
Debian already uses /usr/share/javascript for this purpose, and it
would be really nice if we both could coordinate on getting some
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Robert Marcano
rob...@marcanoonline.com wrote:
This is a better explanation of why the use /usr/share/javascript: We want
to be compatible with others distribution that have the legacy idea that
JavaScript is a browser only thing, so in this directory we will
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Robert Marcano
rob...@marcanoonline.com wrote:
On 08/12/2013 03:23 PM, Robert Marcano wrote:
This is a better explanation of why the use /usr/share/javascript: We
want to be compatible with others distribution that have the legacy idea
that JavaScript is a
On 08/14/2013 07:34 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Robert Marcano
rob...@marcanoonline.com wrote:
On 08/12/2013 03:23 PM, Robert Marcano wrote:
This is a better explanation of why the use /usr/share/javascript: We
want to be compatible with others distribution
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:23 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth
tchollingswo...@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't aware Debian already exported a directory for this. (But
/javascripts, really?) It would be nice if they wrote that into
their policy.
I was slightly wrong: it's /javascript (singular). I couldn't
On 08/09/2013 06:53 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Robert Marcano
rob...@marcanoonline.com wrote:
The directory is not called /usr/share/web-javascript, it is called
/usr/share/javascript, and the packaging guidelines draft explicitly says
that the intention is
On 08/12/2013 03:23 PM, Robert Marcano wrote:
This is a better explanation of why the use /usr/share/javascript: We
want to be compatible with others distribution that have the legacy idea
that JavaScript is a browser only thing, so in this directory we will
only store JavaScript that run on
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:23 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
tchollingswo...@gmail.com wrote:
Debian already uses /usr/share/javascript for this purpose, and it
would be really nice if we both could coordinate on getting some
upstream support for this in certain cases. I'm very strongly -1
against
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Robert Marcano
rob...@marcanoonline.com wrote:
And I don't see a problems with those examples, because they share only
their contents, by installing them you don't share content from other
packages.
Lets make an example of the mess this will create if I want
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Robert Marcano
rob...@marcanoonline.com wrote:
The directory is not called /usr/share/web-javascript, it is called
/usr/share/javascript, and the packaging guidelines draft explicitly says
that the intention is to avoid duplication of libraries, so it is calling
On 08/06/2013 10:46 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Robert Marcano rob...@marcanoonline.com wrote:
You make the decision by installing a js-foo package, just like you
make the decision to provide a web application by installing a package
for it.
You make a decision
On 08/06/2013 02:36 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 22:57 -0430, Robert Marcano wrote:
Do you know there are GNOME JavaScript applications? And that
JavaScript is being encouraged as a language for desktop applications?
So all those libraries that can be used on desktop and web
On 08/06/2013 05:10 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Robert Marcano rob...@marcanoonline.com wrote:
Do you know there are GNOME JavaScript applications? And that JavaScript is
being encouraged as a language for desktop applications? So all those
libraries that can
Hello,
Many web apps use an optimization technique where they try to minimize
the number of httpd request by concatenating minified versions into one
file. Example: app uses 20 tiny jQuery plugins.
Similar use case is when app is using AMD modules and uses only a subset
of modules from a
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Petr Vobornik pvobo...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello,
Many web apps use an optimization technique where they try to minimize the
number of httpd request by concatenating minified versions into one file.
Example: app uses 20 tiny jQuery plugins.
Similar use case is
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Robert Marcano rob...@marcanoonline.com wrote:
You make the decision by installing a js-foo package, just like you
make the decision to provide a web application by installing a package
for it.
You make a decision by installing a package is a really problematic
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 03:05:21PM -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
The guideline should be to ask upstream to fix the meta data. In case of
missing license text (e.g. source code with a GPL header but no copy of
the GPL
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 17:48:23 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 03:05:21PM -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name
wrote:
The guideline should be to ask upstream to fix the meta data. In
case of
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 22:57 -0430, Robert Marcano wrote:
Do you know there are GNOME JavaScript applications? And that
JavaScript is being encouraged as a language for desktop applications?
So all those libraries that can be used on desktop and web clients
There's *very* little JavaScript
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Robert Marcano rob...@marcanoonline.com wrote:
Do you know there are GNOME JavaScript applications? And that JavaScript is
being encouraged as a language for desktop applications? So all those
libraries that can be used on desktop and web clients will be shared
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
Please provide actual recommendations about how to run the ttname
command to the guidelines before filing bugs. And get the guideline
approved to avoid unnecessary changes. Also this does not seem to be
really a MUST
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
If you are going to file a bunch of bugs, PLEASE see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing
I definitely will follow that, thanks!
You might want to shout about that a little more widely, I think every
mass bug filing
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:50:01 -0700
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
If you are going to file a bunch of bugs, PLEASE see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing
I definitely will follow that,
On Aug 3, 2013 8:55 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Robert Marcano
rob...@marcanoonline.com wrote:
On 07/26/2013 12:30 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 21:58, Robert Marcano a écrit :
The real problem with
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 07:54:38PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 19:26, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit :
AFAICS it shouldn't be too hard to script up something so this would
as easy as `fixfontmd --copyright $(head -n3 LICENSE) --licensedesc
$(cat LICENSE) --licenseurl
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:22:10PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/16/2013 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets
Can we please use a different name, like webdata? The
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
The guideline should be to ask upstream to fix the meta data. In case of
missing license text (e.g. source code with a GPL header but no copy of
the GPL itself), it is also upstream's task to fix it and the packager's
to ask
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Robert Marcano
rob...@marcanoonline.com wrote:
On 07/26/2013 12:30 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 21:58, Robert Marcano a écrit :
The real problem with publishing things is that if I distribute binaries
of many things I must follow the
On 07/26/2013 12:30 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 21:58, Robert Marcano a écrit :
The real problem with publishing things is that if I distribute binaries
of many things I must follow the license, some say I need to distribute
sources, some say that I need to distribute a
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 21:58, Robert Marcano a écrit :
The real problem with publishing things is that if I distribute binaries
of many things I must follow the license, some say I need to distribute
sources, some say that I need to distribute a copy of the license, etc.
Making files
On 07/23/2013 12:56 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:07, Robert Marcano a écrit :
Fonts has licenses, some of them require the license to be shown or the
copyright displayed, some fonts
So, this change has FPC guidelines and also some redhat-rpm-macros
changes?
Do those need to be done before the mass rebuild?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
So, this change has FPC guidelines and also some redhat-rpm-macros
changes?
Yup, we just need to add a macro so it's available during
createSRPMfromSCM in Koji. (The conditionalized syntax we'd need
otherwise is just awful.)
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:20:39 -0700
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
So, this change has FPC guidelines and also some redhat-rpm-macros
changes?
Yup, we just need to add a macro so it's available during
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:07, Robert Marcano a écrit :
Fonts has licenses, some of them require the license to be shown or the
copyright displayed, some fonts has the copyright added to their
metadata, I don't
Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 19:26, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit :
Honestly, I'd prefer that we fixed this in Fedora. It solves this
problem quite nicely, and I don't really think it's that widespread an
issue anyway.
Historically it was quite widespread. The only bit of font metadata one
could
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Historically it was quite widespread. The only bit of font metadata one
could rely on was the font name, and then not always. A font author would
widely announce the relicensing of his font and not change the
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:45 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth
tchollingswo...@gmail.com wrote:
There are additionally 252 fonts in 128 packages that don't set the
license description field while setting the copyright field. [2]
These are probably fine, but we might want to take a look over them
anyway.
Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 21:20, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:45 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth
tchollingswo...@gmail.com wrote:
There are additionally 252 fonts in 128 packages that don't set the
license description field while setting the copyright field. [2]
These are
On 07/16/2013 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets
Can we please use a different name, like webdata? The term asset
seems to scare some people.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
--
Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/16/2013 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets
Can we please use a different name, like webdata? The term asset
seems to scare some people.
At least the directory in
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com wrote:
Can we please use a different name, like webdata? The term asset seems
to scare some people.
Huh? It's a pretty common industry term for static bits used as
dependencies for websites. I've never heard of anyone being scared
of
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Björn Persson
bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/16/2013 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets
Can we please use a different name, like
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 12:31, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit :
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com wrote:
Can we please use a different name, like webdata? The term asset
seems
to scare some people.
Huh? It's a pretty common industry term for static bits used as
On 07/22/2013 12:31 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com wrote:
Can we please use a different name, like webdata? The term asset seems
to scare some people.
Huh? It's a pretty common industry term for static bits used as
dependencies for
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:07, Robert Marcano a écrit :
Fonts has licenses, some of them require the license to be shown or the
copyright displayed, some fonts has the copyright added to their
metadata, I don't find for example that gnu-free-serif-fonts says on
it's metadata that is GPL+3
On 07/19/2013 01:13 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Robert Marcano
rob...@marcanoonline.com wrote:
Not all fonts installed had the same licensing requirement, people install
fonts from other places that are not as careful as Fedora with the licenses.
It is
On 07/22/2013 11:11 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:07, Robert Marcano a écrit :
Fonts has licenses, some of them require the license to be shown or the
copyright displayed, some fonts has the copyright added to their
metadata, I don't find for example that
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 15:23 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/22/2013 12:31 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com wrote:
Can we please use a different name, like webdata? The term asset seems
to scare some people.
Huh? It's a pretty
On 7/22/13, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 15:23 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/22/2013 12:31 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer fwei...@redhat.com wrote:
Can we please use a different name, like webdata? The term asset
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets
Change owner(s): T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com
== Detailed description ==
A standard directory
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:51 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
tchollingswo...@gmail.com wrote:
More importantly, is it OK to just take over a part of the server's
URI namespace like this?
snip
But _assets/ does have the potential to clash a lot too. So how
about _sysassets/?
I'm afraid I don't have
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote:
Minor comment: This copy of the text uses /assets ; the wiki page and
the proposed policy uses both /assets and /_assets ; this should be
cleared up.
More importantly, is it OK to just take over a part of the server's
URI
On 07/16/2013 06:24 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
...
Additionally the following symlinks will be provided:
* /usr/share/javascript - /usr/share/assets/javascript
* /usr/share/fonts - /usr/share/assets/fonts (so any Fedora font package can
be used as a web font)
Not all fonts installed had
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Robert Marcano
rob...@marcanoonline.com wrote:
Not all fonts installed had the same licensing requirement, people install
fonts from other places that are not as careful as Fedora with the licenses.
It is problematic if someone install a non free font to be used
I think it's good to establish saner ways to package Javascript and
stuff, but this part puzzles me:
Additionally the following symlinks will be provided:
* /usr/share/javascript - /usr/share/assets/javascript
* /usr/share/fonts - /usr/share/assets/fonts (so any Fedora font
package can be
On 16/07/13 13:21, Björn Persson wrote:
Additionally the following symlinks will be provided:
* /usr/share/javascript - /usr/share/assets/javascript
* /usr/share/fonts - /usr/share/assets/fonts (so any Fedora font
package can be used as a web font)
So all the fonts would be moved from
On 7/16/13, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
On 16/07/13 13:21, Björn Persson wrote:
Additionally the following symlinks will be provided:
* /usr/share/javascript - /usr/share/assets/javascript
* /usr/share/fonts - /usr/share/assets/fonts (so any Fedora font
package can be used as a web
62 matches
Mail list logo
