Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)

[Nicolas Mailhot]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20081109/6f1e76c2/attachment.sig>