From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 1 01:06:29 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:06:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473842] New: Add Greek Polytonic support to Liberation fonts Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Add Greek Polytonic support to Liberation fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473842 Summary: Add Greek Polytonic support to Liberation fonts Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: medium Component: liberation-fonts AssignedTo: cchance at redhat.com ReportedBy: simos.bugzilla at gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: cchance at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Classification: Fedora The Liberation fonts are missing the Greek Polytonic characters (Greek Extended Unicode group). In practical terms, the Greek Extended Unicode group is made of the Greek characters with a variety of accents (they are precomposed characters). This report is to track the process of adding support. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 1 02:53:49 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:53:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812010253.mB12rnG9013634@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 Luis Villa changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|9 |10 --- Comment #22 from Luis Villa 2008-11-30 21:53:47 EDT --- Still a problem in F10; updating appropriately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From cchance at fedoraproject.org Mon Dec 1 05:24:22 2008 From: cchance at fedoraproject.org (Caius Chance) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:24:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/cjkunifonts/F-10 cjkunifonts.spec,1.21,1.22 Message-ID: <20081201052422.AA5CB7011B@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: cchance Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/cjkunifonts/F-10 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv6714 Modified Files: cjkunifonts.spec Log Message: rebuild for fedora 10 Index: cjkunifonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/cjkunifonts/F-10/cjkunifonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.21 retrieving revision 1.22 diff -u -r1.21 -r1.22 --- cjkunifonts.spec 29 Oct 2008 01:26:52 -0000 1.21 +++ cjkunifonts.spec 1 Dec 2008 05:23:52 -0000 1.22 @@ -9,8 +9,7 @@ Name: cjkunifonts Version: 0.2.20080216.1 -Release: 9.2.fc11 -#Release: 9.1%{?dist} +Release: 9.2.fc10 Summary: Chinese TrueType Fonts -- Simplified and Traditional Chinese Ming and Kai Face License: Arphic Group: User Interface/X @@ -203,6 +202,9 @@ %{catalogue}/%{name}-ukai %changelog +* Mon Dec 01 2008 Caius Chance - 0.2.20080216.1-9.2.fc10 +- Rebuild for Fedora 10. + * Wed Oct 29 2008 Caius Chance - 0.2.20080216.1-9.2.fc11 - Resolves: rhbz#466667 (Reverted to 0.2.20080216.1-4 without conf.avail.) From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 1 05:41:47 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 00:41:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 466667] cjkunifont install packages in inexistent directory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812010541.mB15flan001480@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466667 Bug Zapper changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |10 --- Comment #8 from Bug Zapper 2008-11-25 22:48:37 EDT --- This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle. Changing version to '10'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-01 00:41:47 EDT --- cjkunifonts-0.2.20080216.1-9.2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cjkunifonts-0.2.20080216.1-9.2.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 1 05:43:05 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 00:43:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 466667] cjkunifont install packages in inexistent directory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812010543.mB15h5tO007543@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466667 --- Comment #10 from Caius CHANCE 2008-12-01 00:43:05 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=965107 This bug ticket will be closed when pushed to f10 update. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Mon Dec 1 11:45:24 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 03:45:24 -0800 Subject: [Bug 455647] [Indic] Firefox displays garbage Indic characters on parts of some English webpages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812011145.mB1BjONv022228@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455647 Axel Hecht [:Pike] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |VERIFIED --- Comment #28 from Axel Hecht [:Pike] 2008-12-01 03:45:14 PST --- Based on comments here, in irc and on .l10n.in, marking this VERIFIED for trunk. Sam, is having this not shown up any beta 2 blockers good enough as baking? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 1 12:15:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 07:15:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473903] New: font size isn't restored upon login Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: font size isn't restored upon login https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473903 Summary: font size isn't restored upon login Product: Fedora Version: 10 Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: fontconfig AssignedTo: besfahbo at redhat.com ReportedBy: francis.earl at gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: besfahbo at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora Description of problem: When I first log in to an Xsession, my fonts are all about 6pt when they should be 9pt. When I launch the Appearance settings, they are restored to my settings. This appears to be true with all fonts. It is also true of all GTK apps, and aMSN at least. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.6.0-3.fc10 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Log into X 2. Notice fonts are wrong 3. Go to fix them, watch them magically fix themselves w/o interaction Actual results: Fonts are not restored through sessions immediately Expected results: The fonts I select should remain. Additional info: I am using the default "Sans" font, size 9. GDM is set at 1024x768 while the users session is 1280x1024. It appears to be using the GDM settings for the Xsession despite the change in resolution. This is rarely also displayed by panels rendering by dimensions of the old resolution, despite being able to use the rest of the screen (somewhat) normally (just have to move things around the panel...) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 1 13:40:57 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 08:40:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473551] Fix dejavu-* dependencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812011340.mB1DevVW005457@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473551 Kostas Georgiou changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |k.georgiou at imperial.ac.uk --- Comment #5 from Kostas Georgiou 2008-12-01 08:40:56 EDT --- This stops ganglia being rebuild for dist-f11-python so it would be nice if it can fixed soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Mon Dec 1 13:59:56 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 05:59:56 -0800 Subject: [Bug 455647] [Indic] Firefox displays garbage Indic characters on parts of some English webpages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812011359.mB1Dxu5J018679@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455647 --- Comment #29 from Samuel Sidler (:ss | :sps) 2008-12-01 05:59:51 PST --- Yes, this has baked on trunk long enough and we'll look at the approval request when we start doing 1.9.0.6 triage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From ivazquez at fedoraproject.org Mon Dec 1 15:01:24 2008 From: ivazquez at fedoraproject.org (Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:01:24 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/fontforge/devel fontforge.spec,1.36,1.37 Message-ID: <20081201150124.689A170144@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: ivazquez Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/fontforge/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv31947/fontforge/devel Modified Files: fontforge.spec Log Message: Rebuild for Python 2.6 Index: fontforge.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/fontforge/devel/fontforge.spec,v retrieving revision 1.36 retrieving revision 1.37 diff -u -r1.36 -r1.37 --- fontforge.spec 8 Nov 2008 10:52:34 -0000 1.36 +++ fontforge.spec 1 Dec 2008 15:00:24 -0000 1.37 @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Name: fontforge Version: 20080927 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} Summary: Outline and bitmap font editor Group: Applications/Publishing @@ -134,6 +134,9 @@ %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*.pc %changelog +* Mon Dec 01 2008 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams - 20080927-2 +- Rebuild for Python 2.6 + * Sat Nov 08 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 20080927-1 ??? quick & dirty version bump to start working on F11 font packages From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 1 15:09:23 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:09:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473551] Fix dejavu-* dependencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812011509.mB1F9N1F023964@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473551 Jarod Wilson changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #6 from Jarod Wilson 2008-12-01 10:09:22 EDT --- Commits are open to anyone in the provenpackager group... Anywho, modified build underway now... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 1 15:34:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:34:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473564] Replace bitstream-vera dependencies with dejavu dependencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812011534.mB1FYhu7029071@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473564 Hans de Goede changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #1 from Hans de Goede 2008-12-01 10:34:42 EDT --- Fixed in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 1 15:46:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:46:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473563] Replace bitstream-vera dependencies with dejavu dependencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812011546.mB1FkOkD023431@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473563 Hans de Goede changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #1 from Hans de Goede 2008-12-01 10:46:23 EDT --- Fixed in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From a_p_sysoev at openoffice.org Mon Dec 1 16:00:42 2008 From: a_p_sysoev at openoffice.org (a_p_sysoev at openoffice.org) Date: 1 Dec 2008 16:00:42 -0000 Subject: [Issue 69129] Add support for Graphite font technology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081201160042.10665.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=69129 ------- Additional comments from a_p_sysoev at openoffice.org Mon Dec 1 16:00:41 +0000 2008 ------- The issue depends on 93645. It would be good to have this dependency in "show dependency tree" of the issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From kpalagin at openoffice.org Mon Dec 1 16:08:12 2008 From: kpalagin at openoffice.org (kpalagin at openoffice.org) Date: 1 Dec 2008 16:08:12 -0000 Subject: [Issue 69129] Add support for Graphite font technology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081201160812.15040.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=69129 User kpalagin changed the following: What |Old value |New value ================================================================================ IssuesThisDependsOn| |93645 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Additional comments from kpalagin at openoffice.org Mon Dec 1 16:08:10 +0000 2008 ------- added 93645 to "depends on". --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From nmailhot at openoffice.org Mon Dec 1 16:13:18 2008 From: nmailhot at openoffice.org (nmailhot at openoffice.org) Date: 1 Dec 2008 16:13:18 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081201161318.18846.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 User nmailhot changed the following: What |Old value |New value ================================================================================ CC|'hr,mh' |'fedorafonts,hr,mh' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 1 20:44:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:44:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474045] New: there is a newer upstream version available (4.28) Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: there is a newer upstream version available (4.28) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474045 Summary: there is a newer upstream version available (4.28) Product: Fedora Version: 10 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: high Component: terminus-font AssignedTo: rhbugs at n-dimensional.de ReportedBy: shamardin at gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: rhbugs at n-dimensional.de, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora Description of problem: There is a newer upstream version 4.28 available on the font homepage: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/ Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): terminus-font-x11-4.26-3.fc10.noarch How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. yum install terminus-font-x11 Actual results: terminus-font-x11-4.26-3.fc10.noarch Expected results: terminus-font-x11-4.28-4.fc10.noarch Additional info: As a Cyrillic user I would also ask you to include these patches by default: terminus-font-4.28-dv1.diff.gz, terminus-font-4.28-ge1.diff.gz, terminus-font-4.28-ij1.diff.gz. This would give the font a more usual and common look, at least for Russian users. These patches are available at the project homepage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Tue Dec 2 02:04:52 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:04:52 -0800 Subject: [Bug 458169] [@font-face] implement downloadable font support on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812020204.mB224qBw008157@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458169 --- Comment #19 from Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) 2008-12-01 18:04:38 PST --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > > Should these functions be changed (in a separate patch) to return > > > already_AddRefed? > > > > I think so. I find it confusing to pass around references to objects that > > have a reference count of zero. > > Please file a bug on that. Bug 467465 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 2 04:10:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:10:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 272521] Handle fonts with many styles gracefully In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812020410.mB24AbTE009899@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=272521 Bill Nottingham changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Tracking -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 2 06:36:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 01:36:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 459451] Changes in glyph point settings window could not be applied. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812020636.mB26a6Zf005308@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459451 Kevin Fenzi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(cchance at redhat.co | |m) --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-02 01:36:05 EDT --- Can you confirm that this is now fixed in f10? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 2 06:37:48 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 01:37:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 450709] xorg-x11-fonts-Type1 doesn't update cache files on upgrade In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812020637.mB26bmOd015505@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=450709 --- Comment #11 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-02 01:37:46 EDT --- *** Bug 466404 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 2 06:37:47 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 01:37:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 466404] Segmentation fault. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812020637.mB26bl5B015472@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466404 Bug Zapper changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |10 Kevin Fenzi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE --- Comment #6 from Bug Zapper 2008-11-25 22:44:04 EDT --- This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle. Changing version to '10'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-02 01:37:46 EDT --- I am going to go ahead and close this as it's looking like a duplicate of 450709 and I haven't heard back from the reporter in months. Feel free to file a new bug if there is a need. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 450709 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 2 07:10:16 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 02:10:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 471542] Build fontforge with cairo, pango and spiro support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812020710.mB27AG2J012233@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471542 Bug Zapper changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |10 Kevin Fenzi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Version|10 |rawhide --- Comment #1 from Bug Zapper 2008-11-26 00:21:44 EDT --- This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle. Changing version to '10'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping --- Comment #2 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-02 02:10:15 EDT --- spiro isn't yet in fedora. It will need to be packaged... I can look at doing that. cairo support doesn't seem to work. There is a compile failure that upstream says is fixed, but doesn't seem to yet be in the newest release. ;( This also causes pango to not work. ;( I will see about finding a patch or the next release once it's out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 2 07:14:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 02:14:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472637] libpng.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812020714.mB27EMtW022263@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472637 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-02 02:14:21 EDT --- Can you try http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=970252 ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From cchance at fedoraproject.org Tue Dec 2 07:29:16 2008 From: cchance at fedoraproject.org (Caius Chance) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:29:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/liberation-fonts/F-10 .cvsignore, 1.7, 1.8 liberation-fonts.spec, 1.23, 1.24 sources, 1.10, 1.11 Message-ID: <20081202072916.1F7817011A@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: cchance Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/liberation-fonts/F-10 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv10059 Modified Files: .cvsignore liberation-fonts.spec sources Log Message: - Update source to 1.04.92. Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/liberation-fonts/F-10/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.7 retrieving revision 1.8 diff -u -r1.7 -r1.8 --- .cvsignore 26 Aug 2008 03:47:36 -0000 1.7 +++ .cvsignore 2 Dec 2008 07:28:45 -0000 1.8 @@ -1 +1 @@ -liberation-fonts-1.04.90.devel.tar.gz +liberation-fonts-1.04.92.src.tar.gz Index: liberation-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/liberation-fonts/F-10/liberation-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.23 retrieving revision 1.24 diff -u -r1.23 -r1.24 --- liberation-fonts.spec 26 Aug 2008 03:47:36 -0000 1.23 +++ liberation-fonts.spec 2 Dec 2008 07:28:45 -0000 1.24 @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Summary: Fonts to replace commonly used Microsoft Windows Fonts Name: liberation-fonts -Version: 1.04.90 +Version: 1.04.92 Release: 1%{?dist} # The license of the Liberation Fonts is a EULA that contains # GPLv2 and two exceptions: @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ License: Liberation Group: User Interface/X URL: https://www.redhat.com/promo/fonts/ -Source0: liberation-fonts-1.04.90.devel.tar.gz +Source0: liberation-fonts-1.04.92.tar.gz BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root BuildArch: noarch Buildrequires: xorg-x11-font-utils @@ -25,7 +25,8 @@ Arial, and Courier New. %prep -%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}.devel +#%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version}.devel +%setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} %clean rm -rf %{buildroot} @@ -69,6 +70,9 @@ %{catalogue}/%{name} %changelog +* Tue Dec 02 2008 Caius Chance - 1.04.92.fc10 +- Update source to 1.04.92. + * Thu Jul 17 2008 Caius Chance - 1.04.90-1.fc10 - Resolves: rhbz#258592 (Incorrect glyph points and missing hinting instructions for U+0079, U+03BC, Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/liberation-fonts/F-10/sources,v retrieving revision 1.10 retrieving revision 1.11 diff -u -r1.10 -r1.11 --- sources 26 Aug 2008 03:47:36 -0000 1.10 +++ sources 2 Dec 2008 07:28:45 -0000 1.11 @@ -1 +1 @@ -c1db9273c80b3c6e6c63888157af81c0 liberation-fonts-1.04.90.devel.tar.gz +ebb76b60498a585eb7f7f1d76820dceb liberation-fonts-1.04.92.src.tar.gz From cchance at fedoraproject.org Tue Dec 2 07:35:39 2008 From: cchance at fedoraproject.org (Caius Chance) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:35:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/liberation-fonts/F-10 .cvsignore,1.8,1.9 sources,1.11,1.12 Message-ID: <20081202073539.7F2687011A@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: cchance Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/liberation-fonts/F-10 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv10606 Modified Files: .cvsignore sources Log Message: correct source file Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/liberation-fonts/F-10/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.8 retrieving revision 1.9 diff -u -r1.8 -r1.9 --- .cvsignore 2 Dec 2008 07:28:45 -0000 1.8 +++ .cvsignore 2 Dec 2008 07:35:09 -0000 1.9 @@ -1 +1 @@ -liberation-fonts-1.04.92.src.tar.gz +liberation-fonts-1.04.92.tar.gz Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/liberation-fonts/F-10/sources,v retrieving revision 1.11 retrieving revision 1.12 diff -u -r1.11 -r1.12 --- sources 2 Dec 2008 07:28:45 -0000 1.11 +++ sources 2 Dec 2008 07:35:09 -0000 1.12 @@ -1 +1 @@ -ebb76b60498a585eb7f7f1d76820dceb liberation-fonts-1.04.92.src.tar.gz +752c3cf8516520157684f927a8aaf8ca liberation-fonts-1.04.92.tar.gz From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 2 13:00:32 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 08:00:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473553] Fix dejavu-* dependencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812021300.mB2D0WNB029455@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473553 Caolan McNamara changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 2 14:01:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:01:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 444281] Provides: freetype2-devel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812021401.mB2E1MZa003414@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444281 Ed Avis changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|8 |10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Tue Dec 2 19:32:15 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:32:15 -0800 Subject: [Bug 449356] Refactor gfxPangoFontGroup for user fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812021932.mB2JWF79014227@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=449356 Bug 449356 depends on bug 466956, which changed state. Bug 466956 Summary: Crash because of trying to match non-existing fonts https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=466956 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 00:20:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 19:20:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 459680] qt/kde: font antialiasing was disabled by uming fontconfig file. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030020.mB30K35H018106@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459680 Bug Zapper changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |10 Caius CHANCE changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|cchance at redhat.com |than at redhat.com --- Comment #44 from Bug Zapper 2008-11-25 21:50:08 EDT --- This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle. Changing version to '10'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 00:42:16 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 19:42:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473481] ugly greek letter m (U+03BC) in liberation sans regular In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030042.mB30gGSx021797@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473481 Caius CHANCE changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |i18n --- Comment #5 from Caius CHANCE 2008-12-02 19:42:15 EDT --- Please kindly confirm if that is fixed: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/l/i/liberation-fonts/liberation-fonts-1.04.93.devel.tar.gz https://fedorahosted.org/releases/l/i/liberation-fonts/liberation-fonts-1.04.93.devel.zip -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 00:55:01 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 19:55:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473481] Greek letter m (U+03BC) blurriness in liberation sans regular In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030055.mB30t1lJ030020@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473481 Caius CHANCE changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|ugly greek letter m |Greek letter m (U+03BC) |(U+03BC) in liberation sans |blurriness in liberation |regular |sans regular -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 00:55:33 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 19:55:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473481] Blurriness of Greek letter m (U+03BC) in Liberation Sans Regular In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030055.mB30tXLY023998@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473481 Caius CHANCE changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Greek letter m (U+03BC) |Blurriness of Greek letter |blurriness in liberation |m (U+03BC) in Liberation |sans regular |Sans Regular -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From cchance at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 3 01:00:23 2008 From: cchance at fedoraproject.org (Caius Chance) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 01:00:23 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/liberation-fonts/devel .cvsignore, 1.7, 1.8 liberation-fonts.spec, 1.23, 1.24 sources, 1.10, 1.11 Message-ID: <20081203010024.1C6DF7011D@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: cchance Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/liberation-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv30237 Modified Files: .cvsignore liberation-fonts.spec sources Log Message: * Wed Dec 03 2008 Caius Chance - 1.04.93-1.fc11 - Resolves: rhbz#473481 (Blurriness of Greek letter m (U+03BC) in Liberation Sans Regular.) Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/liberation-fonts/devel/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.7 retrieving revision 1.8 diff -u -r1.7 -r1.8 --- .cvsignore 26 Aug 2008 03:47:36 -0000 1.7 +++ .cvsignore 3 Dec 2008 00:59:50 -0000 1.8 @@ -1 +1 @@ -liberation-fonts-1.04.90.devel.tar.gz +liberation-fonts-1.04.93.devel.tar.gz Index: liberation-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/liberation-fonts/devel/liberation-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.23 retrieving revision 1.24 diff -u -r1.23 -r1.24 --- liberation-fonts.spec 26 Aug 2008 03:47:36 -0000 1.23 +++ liberation-fonts.spec 3 Dec 2008 00:59:51 -0000 1.24 @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Summary: Fonts to replace commonly used Microsoft Windows Fonts Name: liberation-fonts -Version: 1.04.90 +Version: 1.04.93 Release: 1%{?dist} # The license of the Liberation Fonts is a EULA that contains # GPLv2 and two exceptions: @@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ License: Liberation Group: User Interface/X URL: https://www.redhat.com/promo/fonts/ -Source0: liberation-fonts-1.04.90.devel.tar.gz +Source0: liberation-fonts-1.04.93.devel.tar.gz BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root BuildArch: noarch Buildrequires: xorg-x11-font-utils @@ -69,6 +69,10 @@ %{catalogue}/%{name} %changelog +* Wed Dec 03 2008 Caius Chance - 1.04.93-1.fc11 +- Resolves: rhbz#473481 + (Blurriness of Greek letter m (U+03BC) in Liberation Sans Regular.) + * Thu Jul 17 2008 Caius Chance - 1.04.90-1.fc10 - Resolves: rhbz#258592 (Incorrect glyph points and missing hinting instructions for U+0079, U+03BC, Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/liberation-fonts/devel/sources,v retrieving revision 1.10 retrieving revision 1.11 diff -u -r1.10 -r1.11 --- sources 26 Aug 2008 03:47:36 -0000 1.10 +++ sources 3 Dec 2008 00:59:51 -0000 1.11 @@ -1 +1 @@ -c1db9273c80b3c6e6c63888157af81c0 liberation-fonts-1.04.90.devel.tar.gz +65a67157a13d8b4dd5201c20ce47a915 liberation-fonts-1.04.93.devel.tar.gz From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 01:11:36 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:11:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 466667] cjkunifont install packages in inexistent directory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030111.mB31BaYC026982@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466667 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-02 20:11:36 EDT --- cjkunifonts-0.2.20080216.1-9.2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update cjkunifonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2008-10504 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 01:16:29 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:16:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473842] Add Greek Polytonic support to Liberation fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030116.mB31GTJH001984@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473842 Caius CHANCE changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |i18n Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 01:24:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:24:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 457281] Review Request: unikurd-fonts - A widely used Kurdish font In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030124.mB31Obas003938@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457281 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-02 20:24:36 EDT --- unikurd-web-font-20020502-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 01:24:25 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:24:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 457281] Review Request: unikurd-fonts - A widely used Kurdish font In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030124.mB31OPii030601@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457281 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-02 20:24:24 EDT --- unikurd-web-font-20020502-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 01:24:28 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:24:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 457281] Review Request: unikurd-fonts - A widely used Kurdish font In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030124.mB31OSJr030645@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457281 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 01:28:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:28:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 457281] Review Request: unikurd-fonts - A widely used Kurdish font In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030128.mB31SM0N005707@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457281 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-02 20:28:21 EDT --- unikurd-web-font-20020502-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 01:28:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:28:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473842] Add Greek Polytonic support to Liberation fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030128.mB31SgJc005836@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473842 Caius CHANCE changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(simos.bugzilla at gm | |ail.com) --- Comment #1 from Caius CHANCE 2008-12-02 20:28:41 EDT --- Would you prefer to have 'Greek and Coptic Group' filled first? There are 45 chars to be worked. And the Greek Extended Group has approximately 100 chars to be worked. I am not from Greek so please let me know which group I should prioritize? Thank you very much. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 02:55:19 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 21:55:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473842] Add Greek Polytonic support to Liberation fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030255.mB32tJnJ021046@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473842 Simos Xenitellis changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(simos.bugzilla at gm | |ail.com) | --- Comment #2 from Simos Xenitellis 2008-12-02 21:55:18 EDT --- Yes, filling up the Greek Unicode block would be great. We have updated the Greek layout (XKB) so that users can type these characters as well. The section for Coptic (U03E2..U03EF) can be skipped because Coptic users make use of the dedicated Coptic Unicode block (starts at U2C80). I am not aware of Coptic documents that use Coptic from the Greek&Coptic Unicode block. Cheers! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From kstribley at openoffice.org Wed Dec 3 03:16:04 2008 From: kstribley at openoffice.org (kstribley at openoffice.org) Date: 3 Dec 2008 03:16:04 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081203031604.17895.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 ------- Additional comments from kstribley at openoffice.org Wed Dec 3 03:16:03 +0000 2008 ------- Thanks for your tips. The graphite module is now in the graphite01 CWS at http://svn.services.openoffice.org/ooo/cws/graphite01/graphite/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 03:22:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 22:22:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474045] there is a newer upstream version available (4.28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030322.mB33Mbq9026311@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474045 john.brown009 at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |FutureFeature Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |john.brown009 at gmail.com --- Comment #1 from john.brown009 at gmail.com 2008-12-02 22:22:36 EDT --- This bug has been triaged. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Wed Dec 3 03:56:59 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 19:56:59 -0800 Subject: [Bug 458169] [@font-face] implement downloadable font support on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030356.mB33uxBQ018683@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458169 --- Comment #20 from Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) 2008-12-02 19:56:52 PST --- (In reply to comment #16) > 6) Modifying cairo to not holdover unreferenced fonts with external > destroy_hooks. (In reply to comment #18) > It seems like option 6 is the way to go. Or perhaps > > 7) add a cairo API to flush unreferenced fonts (or unreferenced fonts with > external destroy_hooks) > > Basically, it's an API bug for cairo to require external destroy_hooks to work > indefinitely far in the future. I think there are also performance reasons to only holdover fonts that are likely to be used again, and if these fonts have no external references they are not likely to be used again. So cairo won't need an API to flush unreferenced fonts, if the holdover mechanism takes this into consideration. I think modifying cairo's holdover logic is probably the best solution in the long term, but will require quite a reshuffle of data structures. I've filed https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18857 (In reply to comment #16) > 4) Find out the FT_Library that cairo is using from the FT_Face from > a cairo_ft_scaled_font_lock_face, and use that instead of using a > separate FT_Library. > > There is some appeal in using the same FT_Library as cairo rather than > having two identical FT_Librarys. This approach would be making the > assumption that cairo won't "Done" its FT_Library until > cairo_debug_reset_static_data, but I can't think of a good reason why > cairo might change its behavior to do this. I think this is going to be the best solution in the short term, as we currently don't need to concern ourselves with libraries being unloaded. Behdad suggested this same solution as I was about to mention it to him, and said that the assumption here is safe. Selected discussion on this from #cairo, with some edits to group threads more closely: i using cairo-ft-font for fonts created from an FT_Face for font data in memory this means registering a destroy_func on the font_face the bit where this gets inconvenient is that the destroy_func may be called at any time due to the holdovers in the scaled font map this is particularly inconvenient for users of cairo-ft-fonts that are dynamic libraries (or modules) that want to be unloaded such libraries would need to keep a reference to themselves, and (often) call dlclose on themselves when the last cairo_font_face is destroyed calling dlclose on oneself either involves relying on tail-call optimization, or making dlclose a destroy func on the last cairo_font_face (during execution of its first destroy_func) can't you put the destory func into something that i not a module? karlt: I think you just have to choose a) make a copy of the data b) don't unload your module Company: that's what making dlclose a destroy func on the last cairo_font_face would be doing kinda, yeah if you assume the dlclose really is called as the later one of the destroy funcs Company: yeah, it would be added only after the first destroy func has already been called can you add destroy funcs from destroy funcs? Company: i haven't checked i'd guess you can't, but not sure unloading libraries is a PITA anyway, because it invites lots of bugs otaylor: i'm not seeing how to release the copy for (a) karlt: might be tricky, you could have a tiny library that stays resident otaylor: possible but i'm wondering whether this complexity is necessary: the holdover scaled fonts are only useful if they might be picked up again and if there are no other references to the font_face then they won't be referenced again s/font_face/FT_Face/ maybe i guess i'm imagining a possible implementation something like where the unscaled_font (or maybe font_face) decides how many scaled_fonts to holdover that way the unscaled font can release scaled_fonts that won't be needed on a related note, the user currently has to keep a reference count to it's FT_Library so that it doesn't call FT_Done_FreeType before cairo has called the destroy_func on the last FT_Face is it worth considering added an api to cairo-ft-fonts so that the user can use cairo's FT_Library? and does anyone know if there is significant memory associated with have extra FT_Librarys in existence messy stuff karlt: actually I don't know how come no one added ref counting to freetype yes, that would be nice as for getting to cairo's FT lib, just create a toy scaled font or something and get the lib out of that cairo's FT_Library is kind of available through cairo_ft_scaled_font_lock_face, and face->glyph->library yeah is it safe to assume that modifications to cairo won't choose to Done the FT_Library before reset_static_data? karlt: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From hdu at openoffice.org Wed Dec 3 07:55:08 2008 From: hdu at openoffice.org (hdu at openoffice.org) Date: 3 Dec 2008 07:55:08 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081203075508.23660.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 ------- Additional comments from hdu at openoffice.org Wed Dec 3 07:55:07 +0000 2008 ------- @kstribely: thanks! Is everything ready, i.e. is everything commited that needs to be commited? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From nmailhot at openoffice.org Wed Dec 3 08:35:00 2008 From: nmailhot at openoffice.org (nmailhot at openoffice.org) Date: 3 Dec 2008 08:35:00 -0000 Subject: [Issue 96826] Add font autoinstallation support Message-ID: To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=96826 Issue #|96826 Summary|Add font autoinstallation support Component|framework Version|OOo 3.0 Platform|Unknown URL| OS/Version|All Status|UNCONFIRMED Status whiteboard| Keywords| Resolution| Issue type|FEATURE Priority|P3 Subcomponent|code Assigned to|tm Reported by|nmailhot ------- Additional comments from nmailhot at openoffice.org Wed Dec 3 08:35:00 +0000 2008 ------- The Linux platform is gaining an on-demand font autoinstallation framework (BSD and Solaris will probably follow eventually). http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AutomaticFontInstallation OpenOffice.org should be plugged into it and use it to request the fonts its documents need. This would have a huge user impact, especially writer-side --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Wed Dec 3 08:44:25 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:44:25 -0800 Subject: [Bug 467729] RFE: Add font autoinstallation support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812030844.mB38iPxU013614@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=467729 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Dec 3 08:49:57 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:49:57 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Bug 176774] New: RFE: Add font autoinstallation support Message-ID: http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=176774 Summary: RFE: Add font autoinstallation support Product: kdelibs Version: unspecified Platform: Unlisted Binaries OS/Version: All Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: feature request Priority: NOR Component: qt AssignedTo: kdelibs-bugs at kde.org ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net CC: fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com The Linux platform is gaining an on-demand font autoinstallation framework (BSD and Solaris will probably follow eventually). http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AutomaticFontInstallation KDE apps should be plugged into it and use it to request the fonts their documents need. This would have a huge user impact, especially for koffice. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org Wed Dec 3 08:52:08 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org (bugzilla-daemon at webkit.org) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:52:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 22621] New: RFE: Add font autoinstallation support Message-ID: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22621 Summary: RFE: Add font autoinstallation support Product: WebKit Version: 528+ (Nightly build) Platform: PC OS/Version: Linux Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: Enhancement Priority: P2 Component: Text AssignedTo: webkit-unassigned at lists.webkit.org ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net CC: fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com The Linux platform is gaining an on-demand font autoinstallation framework (BSD and Solaris will probably follow eventually). http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AutomaticFontInstallation Webkit browsers should be plugged into it and use it to request the fonts the pages they render need. This would have a huge user impact, especially for pages that have strong i18n constrains. Unlike proposals such as @font-face and EOT the fonts are sourced from trusted user-controlled sources, are properly vetted legal-side, use the latest font versions not old obsolete ones (with bug fixes), and are installed system-wide where other apps can take advantage of them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugs.webkit.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Wed Dec 3 11:04:29 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 03:04:29 -0800 Subject: [Bug 458169] [@font-face] implement downloadable font support on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812031104.mB3B4TNJ014117@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458169 Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #350535|0 |1 is obsolete| | Attachment #351146| |review?(roc at ocallahan.org) Flag| | --- Comment #21 from Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) 2008-12-03 03:04:21 PST --- Created an attachment (id=351146) --> (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=351146) src:url() v1.1 - use cairo's FT_Library This avoids the crash in comment 15. We'll also want to fix https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18862 to avoid crashes in FT_Done_Face or FT_Set_Transform that occur at a random time after browsing pages with @font-face { src: url() }. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Wed Dec 3 17:22:06 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:22:06 -0800 Subject: [Bug 467729] RFE: Add font autoinstallation support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812031722.mB3HM6gh019480@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=467729 Natch changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |highmind63 at gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Natch 2008-12-03 09:22:03 PST --- probably should be core->gfx? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Wed Dec 3 21:39:49 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:39:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18872] New: Can not run the font tests at taat Message-ID: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18872 Summary: Can not run the font tests at taat Product: swfdec Version: unspecified Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: plugin AssignedTo: swfdec at lists.freedesktop.org ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: swfdec at lists.freedesktop.org CC: fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com taat has some font tests used to collect font info about visitors. They would be pretty useful to run to raise web designer awareness about the fonts actually installed on free OSes. Unfortunately, firefox+swfdec seem unable to run them firefox-3.0.4-1.fc10.x86_64 swfdec-0.9.2-1.fc11.x86_64 swfdec-mozilla-0.9.2-1.fc11.x86_64 swfdec-gtk-0.9.2-1.fc11.x86_64 http://taat.pl/typografia/webfonts/ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Linux_fonts_on_the_web_?_CSS_and_font_surveys -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Wed Dec 3 21:56:39 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:56:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18872] Need a way to (auto)play invisible Flash files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081203215639.8EF07130058@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18872 Benjamin Otte changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Summary|Can not run the font tests |Need a way to (auto)play |at taat |invisible Flash files --- Comment #1 from Benjamin Otte 2008-12-03 13:56:37 PST --- According to that test, my fonts are AR PL KaitiM GB,AR PL UKai CN,AR PL UKai HK,AR PL UKai TW,AR PL UKai TW MBE,AR PL UMing CN,AR PL UMing HK,AR PL UMing TW,AR PL UMing TW MBE,Aksharyogini,AlArabiya,AlBattar,AlHor,AlManzomah,AlMateen,AlMohanad,AlMothnna,AlYarmook,Andika Basic,Ani,AnjaliOldLipi,Arab,Baekmuk Batang,Baekmuk Dotum,Baekmuk Gulim,Baekmuk Headline,Bitstream Charter,Bitstream Vera Sans,Bitstream Vera Sans Mono,Bitstream Vera Serif,Century Schoolbook L,Chandas,Cortoba,Courier 10 Pitch,DejaVu Sans,DejaVu Sans Mono,DejaVu Serif,Dimnah,Dingbats,Doulos SIL,Dyuthi,Electron,FreeMono,FreeSans,FreeSerif,Furat,Garuda,Gentium,GentiumAlt,Granada,Graph,Hani,Haramain,Hor,Jamrul,Japan,Jet,Kalimati,Kalyani,Kayrawan,Kedage,Khalid,Kinnari,Kochi Gothic,Kochi Mincho,Likhan,Lohit Bengali,Lohit Gujarati,Lohit Hindi,Lohit Kannada,Lohit Oriya,Lohit Punjabi,Lohit Tamil,Lohit Telugu,Loma,Mallige,Mashq,Meera,Metal,MgOpen Canonica,MgOpen Cosmetica,MgOpen Modata,MgOpen Moderna,Mitra Mono,Monospace,Monospace,Mukti Narrow,Nada,Nagham,Nakula,Nice,Nimbus Mono L,Nimbus Roman No9 L,Nimbus Sans L,Norasi,OpenSymbol,Ostorah,Ouhod,Petra,Phetsarath OT,Pothana2000,Purisa,Rachana,RaghuMalayalam,Rasheeq,Rehan,Rekha,Saab,Sahadeva,Salem,Samanata,Samyak Devanagari,Samyak Gujarati,Samyak Oriya,Sans,Sans,Sarai,Sawasdee,Sazanami Gothic,Serif,Serif,Shado,Sharjah,Sindbad,Standard Symbols L,TAMu_Kadambri,TAMu_Kalyani,TAMu_Maduram,TSCu_Comic,TSCu_Paranar,TSCu_Times,Tarablus,Tholoth,Tlwg Typist,Tlwg Typo,TlwgMono,TlwgTypewriter,URW Bookman L,URW Chancery L,URW Gothic L,URW Palladio L,Umpush,Vemana2000,Waree,aakar,gargi,ori1Uni,padmaa,padmaa-Bold.1.1,suruma That's a lot of fonts. The problem is that the Flash file used to determine these fonts is 0 size, and that in turn means that the play button is 0 bytes, too. So you cannot make it play. I have no idea how to solve this though, so I'm up for suggestions. (Anyone knows how Flashblock does it?) It's interesting in particular because quite a bit of invisible Flash is used to do sound "effects" (read: annoying). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Wed Dec 3 22:22:33 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:22:33 -0800 Subject: [Bug 458169] [@font-face] implement downloadable font support on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812032222.mB3MMXmW017156@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458169 Robert O'Callahan (:roc) (Mozilla Corporation) changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #351146|review?(roc at ocallahan.org) |review+ Flag| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 3 22:22:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:22:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474045] there is a newer upstream version available (4.28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812032222.mB3MMO1u021407@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474045 --- Comment #2 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann 2008-12-03 17:22:23 EDT --- I'll build an update to 4.28 shortly. About those patches... As someone who is proud of being able to decipher "?????" written on the side of a ship when given 5 minutes to figure out the letters, I cannot pass any judgement on the suitability of any patches affecting cyrillic letters. As far as I know, cyrillic letters are used in at least Russia, Bulgaria, and Serbia. I am guessing there might be slight differences in the respective languages' letters, which those patches might address. So... those patches might make the letters look worse for non-Russians while improving them for Russians, and then the non-Russians will file a bug... The home page says terminus-font-4.28-ge1.diff.gz - apply when creating an international package which appears to make sense to me to include in the Fedora package, however I'd like a little more information on the ge1 and ij1 patches. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Thu Dec 4 01:07:27 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:07:27 -0800 Subject: [Bug 467729] RFE: Add font autoinstallation support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812040107.mB417RTs019272@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=467729 Jesse Ruderman changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |intl CC| |jruderman at gmail.com, | |roc at ocallahan.org --- Comment #2 from Jesse Ruderman 2008-12-03 17:07:24 PST --- I like this idea, as long as it doesn't cause loading http://wikipedia.org/ to toss up a modal dialog for each language I'm missing fonts for ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 4 01:52:08 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 20:52:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 466369] font rendering is messed up after 20081007 changes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812040152.mB41q8Ne030569@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466369 Bug Zapper changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |10 --- Comment #31 from Bug Zapper 2008-11-25 22:43:42 EDT --- This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle. Changing version to '10'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping --- Comment #32 from Michal Jaegermann 2008-12-03 20:52:07 EDT --- http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/3/535 , and a surrounding discussion, could be relevant. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From kstribley at openoffice.org Thu Dec 4 03:34:49 2008 From: kstribley at openoffice.org (kstribley at openoffice.org) Date: 4 Dec 2008 03:34:49 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081204033449.28029.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 ------- Additional comments from kstribley at openoffice.org Thu Dec 4 03:34:49 +0000 2008 ------- Please could you give me another week. SIL have reported some issues with fallback on Windows, which I would like to test some more. It may need a few more code tweaks. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Thu Dec 4 05:02:24 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:02:24 -0800 Subject: [Bug 458169] [@font-face] implement downloadable font support on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812040502.mB452OeE014924@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458169 Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |467874 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 4 08:51:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 03:51:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474514] New: file conflict on upgrading Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: file conflict on upgrading https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474514 Summary: file conflict on upgrading Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: dejavu-fonts AssignedTo: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net ReportedBy: tagoh at redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora Description of problem: Transaction Check Error: file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansMono-Bold.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-mono-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansMono-BoldOblique.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-mono-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansMono-Oblique.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-mono-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansMono.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-mono-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerif-Bold.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerif.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerif-BoldItalic.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerif-Italic.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerifCondensed-Bold.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerifCondensed-BoldItalic.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerifCondensed-Italic.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerifCondensed.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans-Bold.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans-BoldOblique.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans-Oblique.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans-ExtraLight.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansCondensed-Bold.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansCondensed-BoldOblique.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansCondensed-Oblique.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansCondensed.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): # rpm -qa | grep dejavu dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From hdu at openoffice.org Thu Dec 4 09:31:31 2008 From: hdu at openoffice.org (hdu at openoffice.org) Date: 4 Dec 2008 09:31:31 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081204093131.14004.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 User hdu changed the following: What |Old value |New value ================================================================================ CC|'fedorafonts,hr,mh' |'fedorafonts,mh' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|external |gsl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QA contact|issues at external |issues at gsl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subcomponent|www |code -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Target milestone|milestone 1 |OOo 3.1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|unspecified |OOo 3.0 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Additional comments from hdu at openoffice.org Thu Dec 4 09:31:30 +0000 2008 ------- @kstribley: no problem, please take your time so that you feel confident that the CWS will work reliably on all platforms for all use cases. With ChildWorkSpaces like cairocanvastext, kashidafix or maybe even otf01 being already in the queue for OOo31, which all touch related code parts, it may be a wise idea to have graphite01 as an enhancement for a OOo3.2 target. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 4 09:41:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 04:41:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474522] New: Incorrect cent sign glyph (U+00A2) in Sans and Mono style in Liberation fonts Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Incorrect cent sign glyph (U+00A2) in Sans and Mono style in Liberation fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474522 Summary: Incorrect cent sign glyph (U+00A2) in Sans and Mono style in Liberation fonts Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: liberation-fonts AssignedTo: cchance at redhat.com ReportedBy: watchingman at gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: cchance at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Classification: Fedora Created an attachment (id=325660) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=325660) cent sign incorrect cent sign shoud be a coressed capital "C". -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 4 11:35:07 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 06:35:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 458430] Review Request: lcdf-typetools - Tools for manipulating OpenType and PostScript fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812041135.mB4BZ74O002963@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458430 --- Comment #8 from Patrice Dumas 2008-12-04 06:35:05 EDT --- Where do we stand here? I am ready to sponsor you, and the package is near from being acceptable, with (if you coordonate with dvips) or without your patch. Are we waiting for Spot on the legal issue? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 4 12:30:27 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 07:30:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474514] file conflict on upgrading In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812041230.mB4CUR8A022080@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474514 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-04 07:30:26 EDT --- What command did you use to update? There are compat dejavu packages in F11 which are supposed to take care of this, and they worked fine when I tested them in yum. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 4 12:42:08 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 07:42:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474514] file conflict on upgrading In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812041242.mB4Cg83J017246@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474514 --- Comment #2 from Akira TAGOH 2008-12-04 07:42:07 EDT --- Oh, sorry. should mentioned that. I did just yum groupupdate Fonts and didn't work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 4 16:51:11 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:51:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 457094] Upstream fix for missing Romanian glyphs in Type 1 fonts is now available In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812041651.mB4GpBx2011331@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457094 Bug 457094 depends on bug 435737, which changed state. Bug 435737 Summary: update rawhide to latest release 2.2.6a (for fedora 11) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=435737 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 4 18:55:34 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 13:55:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474514] file conflict on upgrading In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812041855.mB4ItYnc009174@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474514 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ffesti at redhat.com, | |james.antill at redhat.com, | |katzj at redhat.com, | |pmatilai at redhat.com, | |skvidal at sethdot.org, | |tim.lauridsen at googlemail.co | |m Component|dejavu-fonts |yum AssignedTo|nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net |skvidal at sethdot.org --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-04 13:55:33 EDT --- Thanks for the info. Re tested and with yum update everything works, with you groupupdate that fails. Which makes it a yum bug IMHO. Seth is not going to be happy with me for making you trigger it. Anyway, here is the complete test scenario: 1. Initial system: F10 or rawhide with the 3 F10 dejavu packages (koji built http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=61502 ) 2. Add rawhide repo to the system, do a yum update ? everything works nicely, you end up with dejavu-fonts-common dejavu-fonts-sans-mono dejavu-fonts-lgc-serif dejavu-fonts-lgc-sans-mono dejavu-fonts-serif dejavu-fonts-lgc-sans dejavu-fonts-sans dejavu-fonts-compat dejavu-fonts-lgc-compat 3. uninstall the new dejavu packages with rpm -e, and reinstall the original dejavu packages 4. try to perform a yum groupupdate Fonts ? bang (same packages, same upgrade path) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 4 20:54:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:54:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 432572] xorg-x11-fonts-75dpi package corrupts fonts in grace, lesstif In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812042054.mB4Ks3W7028751@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432572 Patrice Dumas changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE --- Comment #2 from Patrice Dumas 2008-12-04 15:54:02 EDT --- Looks like a dupicate of Bug 454944. Reopen if it is not the case. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 454944 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 4 22:05:11 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:05:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473481] Blurriness of Greek letter m (U+03BC) in Liberation Sans Regular In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812042205.mB4M5Bbd018040@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473481 Nikos Asimakis changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nikos.asimakis at gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Nikos Asimakis 2008-12-04 17:05:10 EDT --- I tested version 1.04.93 and the problem with U+03BC is fixed. Thank you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 4 22:20:07 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:20:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474514] file conflict on upgrading In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812042220.mB4MK7tR014349@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474514 seth vidal changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |svidal at redhat.com Resolution| |UPSTREAM --- Comment #4 from seth vidal 2008-12-04 17:20:06 EDT --- okay, I've duplicated this and provided a fix here http://yum.baseurl.org/gitweb?p=yum.git;a=commitdiff;h=4d28a994dddfcd80a23eb5d0b83ed989dcbc4de8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 00:32:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 19:32:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473554] Fix dejavu-* dependencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812050032.mB50W3pT013961@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473554 Miloslav Trmac changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #1 from Miloslav Trmac 2008-12-04 19:32:02 EDT --- Fixed in foobillard-3.0a-9. Thanks for your report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 01:24:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 20:24:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474734] Blurriness of Latin letter R (U+0052) in Liberation Regular In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812050124.mB51OgM5022798@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474734 --- Comment #1 from san 2008-12-04 20:24:41 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=325768) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=325768) test case screeenshot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 01:23:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 20:23:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474734] New: Blurriness of Latin letter R (U+0052) in Liberation Regular Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Blurriness of Latin letter R (U+0052) in Liberation Regular https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474734 Summary: Blurriness of Latin letter R (U+0052) in Liberation Regular Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: liberation-fonts AssignedTo: cchance at redhat.com ReportedBy: watchingman at gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: cchance at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Classification: Fedora Created an attachment (id=325767) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=325767) test case Package: ttf-liberation Version: HEAD (1.0.04.93) Severity: normal the character R (U+0052, Latin Capital LETTER R) appears ugly when using Liberation Sans in small pixelsize. fork the test case from Holger Levsen in Bug 473481, you can see this bug also exists in Liberation Sans Italic, Liberation Serif, Liberation Serif Italic. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 01:27:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 20:27:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474734] Blurriness of Latin letter R (U+0052) in Liberation Regular In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812050127.mB51RMTE023438@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474734 --- Comment #2 from san 2008-12-04 20:27:21 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=325770) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=325770) web sshot hightlight "R" in web page screenshot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From tagoh at fedoraproject.org Fri Dec 5 03:14:02 2008 From: tagoh at fedoraproject.org (Akira TAGOH) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 03:14:02 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/VLGothic-fonts/devel VLGothic-fontconfig-monospace.conf, NONE, 1.1 VLGothic-fontconfig-proportional.conf, NONE, 1.1 VLGothic-fonts.spec, 1.16, 1.17 59-VLGothic-monospace.conf, 1.2, NONE 59-VLGothic-proportional.conf, 1.1, NONE Message-ID: <20081205031402.54544700DA@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: tagoh Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/VLGothic-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv2107 Modified Files: VLGothic-fonts.spec Added Files: VLGothic-fontconfig-monospace.conf VLGothic-fontconfig-proportional.conf Removed Files: 59-VLGothic-monospace.conf 59-VLGothic-proportional.conf Log Message: * Thu Dec 4 2008 Akira TAGOH - 20081203-1 - update to 20081203 release. - clean up spec file. - changed the priority prefix for fontconfig to 66 according to Fontconfig packaging tips. --- NEW FILE VLGothic-fontconfig-monospace.conf --- VL Gothic false monospace jp en monospace DejaVu Sans Mono VL Gothic --- NEW FILE VLGothic-fontconfig-proportional.conf --- VL PGothic false sans-serif jp en sans-serif DejaVu Sans VL PGothic Index: VLGothic-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/VLGothic-fonts/devel/VLGothic-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.16 retrieving revision 1.17 diff -u -r1.16 -r1.17 --- VLGothic-fonts.spec 29 Oct 2008 05:41:33 -0000 1.16 +++ VLGothic-fonts.spec 5 Dec 2008 03:13:31 -0000 1.17 @@ -1,9 +1,10 @@ %define fontname VLGothic %define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} %define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define priority 66 Name: %{fontname}-fonts -Version: 20081029 +Version: 20081203 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Japanese TrueType font @@ -11,8 +12,8 @@ Group: User Interface/X URL: http://dicey.org/vlgothic Source0: http://vinelinux.org/~daisuke/vlgothic/%{fontname}-%{version}.tar.bz2 -Source1: 59-VLGothic-proportional.conf -Source2: 59-VLGothic-monospace.conf +Source1: %{fontname}-fontconfig-proportional.conf +Source2: %{fontname}-fontconfig-monospace.conf BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BuildArch: noarch # added for f9 can be dropped in f11: @@ -52,37 +53,37 @@ %install rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} -mkdir -p ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d -install -p -m644 %{SOURCE1} ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d -install -p -m644 %{SOURCE2} ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +install -m0755 -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontconfdir} +install -p -m644 %{SOURCE1} ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{fontconfdir}/%{priority}-%{fontname}-proportional.conf +install -p -m644 %{SOURCE2} ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{fontconfdir}/%{priority}-%{fontname}-monospace.conf -mkdir -p ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{fontdir} -mkdir -p ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{fontdir}-proportional +install -m0755 -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontdir} +install -m0755 -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontdir}-proportional install -p -m644 VL-Gothic-Regular.ttf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{fontdir} install -p -m644 VL-PGothic-Regular.ttf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/%{fontdir}-proportional %post if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{fontdir} || : + %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : fi %postun if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{fontdir} || : + %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : fi fi %post proportional if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{fontdir}-proportional || : + %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir}-proportional || : fi %postun proportional if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{fontdir}-proportional || : + %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir}-proportional || : fi fi @@ -92,20 +93,26 @@ %files -%defattr(-,root,root,-) +%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc README* LICENSE* %dir %{fontdir} -%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d/59-VLGothic-monospace.conf +%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/%{priority}-%{fontname}-monospace.conf %{fontdir}/VL-Gothic-Regular.ttf %files proportional +%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc README* LICENSE* %dir %{fontdir}-proportional -%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d/59-VLGothic-proportional.conf +%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/%{priority}-%{fontname}-proportional.conf %{fontdir}-proportional/VL-PGothic-Regular.ttf %changelog +* Thu Dec 4 2008 Akira TAGOH - 20081203-1 +- update to 20081203 release. +- clean up spec file. +- changed the priority prefix for fontconfig to 66 according to Fontconfig packaging tips. + * Wed Oct 29 2008 Akira TAGOH - 20081029-1 - update to 20081029 release. --- 59-VLGothic-monospace.conf DELETED --- --- 59-VLGothic-proportional.conf DELETED --- From tagoh at fedoraproject.org Fri Dec 5 03:28:08 2008 From: tagoh at fedoraproject.org (Akira TAGOH) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 03:28:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/VLGothic-fonts/devel .cvsignore,1.6,1.7 sources,1.12,1.13 Message-ID: <20081205032808.399C5700DA@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: tagoh Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/VLGothic-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv3379 Modified Files: .cvsignore sources Log Message: Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/VLGothic-fonts/devel/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.6 retrieving revision 1.7 diff -u -r1.6 -r1.7 --- .cvsignore 29 Oct 2008 05:41:33 -0000 1.6 +++ .cvsignore 5 Dec 2008 03:27:37 -0000 1.7 @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ VLGothic-20080624.tar.bz2 VLGothic-20080908.tar.bz2 VLGothic-20081029.tar.bz2 +VLGothic-20081203.tar.bz2 Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/VLGothic-fonts/devel/sources,v retrieving revision 1.12 retrieving revision 1.13 diff -u -r1.12 -r1.13 --- sources 29 Oct 2008 05:41:33 -0000 1.12 +++ sources 5 Dec 2008 03:27:37 -0000 1.13 @@ -1 +1 @@ -c7ef9b60744cba71b7ea7ff402812f4d VLGothic-20081029.tar.bz2 +c397377f4ffef7611247cf52de16e0da VLGothic-20081203.tar.bz2 From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Fri Dec 5 05:18:02 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 21:18:02 -0800 Subject: [Bug 70132] Support @font-face In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812050518.mB55I2RU027481@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70132 Bug 70132 depends on bug 467084, which changed state. Bug 467084 Summary: Downloaded Ahem font does not completely cover background https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=467084 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Fri Dec 5 05:21:39 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 21:21:39 -0800 Subject: [Bug 70132] Support @font-face In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812050521.mB55LdAf030691@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70132 Bug 70132 depends on bug 458863, which changed state. Bug 458863 Summary: [@font-face] positioning of text with downloaded fonts differs from system fonts https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458863 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From tagoh at fedoraproject.org Fri Dec 5 09:49:59 2008 From: tagoh at fedoraproject.org (Akira TAGOH) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:49:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/VLGothic-fonts/devel VLGothic-fontconfig-monospace.conf, 1.1, 1.2 VLGothic-fontconfig-proportional.conf, 1.1, 1.2 VLGothic-fonts.spec, 1.17, 1.18 Message-ID: <20081205094959.F096E700DA@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: tagoh Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/VLGothic-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv8440 Modified Files: VLGothic-fontconfig-monospace.conf VLGothic-fontconfig-proportional.conf VLGothic-fonts.spec Log Message: * Fri Dec 5 2008 Akira TAGOH - 20081203-2 - update fontconfig config according to Fontconfig packaging tips. Index: VLGothic-fontconfig-monospace.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/VLGothic-fonts/devel/VLGothic-fontconfig-monospace.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- VLGothic-fontconfig-monospace.conf 5 Dec 2008 03:13:31 -0000 1.1 +++ VLGothic-fontconfig-monospace.conf 5 Dec 2008 09:49:29 -0000 1.2 @@ -10,23 +10,29 @@ - + + + ja-jp + monospace - - jp - - - en + + VL Gothic monospace - DejaVu Sans Mono VL Gothic + + + VL Gothic + + monospace + + Index: VLGothic-fontconfig-proportional.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/VLGothic-fonts/devel/VLGothic-fontconfig-proportional.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- VLGothic-fontconfig-proportional.conf 5 Dec 2008 03:13:31 -0000 1.1 +++ VLGothic-fontconfig-proportional.conf 5 Dec 2008 09:49:29 -0000 1.2 @@ -10,23 +10,29 @@ - + + + ja-jp + sans-serif - - jp - - - en + + VL PGothic sans-serif - DejaVu Sans VL PGothic + + + VL PGothic + + sans-serif + + Index: VLGothic-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/VLGothic-fonts/devel/VLGothic-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.17 retrieving revision 1.18 diff -u -r1.17 -r1.18 --- VLGothic-fonts.spec 5 Dec 2008 03:13:31 -0000 1.17 +++ VLGothic-fonts.spec 5 Dec 2008 09:49:29 -0000 1.18 @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20081203 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} Summary: Japanese TrueType font License: mplus and BSD @@ -108,6 +108,9 @@ %changelog +* Fri Dec 5 2008 Akira TAGOH - 20081203-2 +- update fontconfig config according to Fontconfig packaging tips. + * Thu Dec 4 2008 Akira TAGOH - 20081203-1 - update to 20081203 release. - clean up spec file. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 10:12:11 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 05:12:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 434753] Sometimes can't display VLGothic via "sansserif" family. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051012.mB5ACBio013474@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434753 Akira TAGOH changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #9 from Akira TAGOH 2008-12-05 05:12:09 EDT --- Just modified fontconfig config somewhat in F-11 according to current fontconfig policy. I don't know why current fontconfig config for VLGothic-fonts contains DejaVu thing though, please test it to see if this issue goes away. then I can backport the fix to F-10 and F-9. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 10:13:08 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 05:13:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 434753] Sometimes can't display VLGothic via "sansserif" family. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051013.mB5AD846013621@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434753 Akira TAGOH changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|ryo-dairiki at users.sourcefor |tagoh at redhat.com |ge.net | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 16:43:32 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:43:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051643.mB5GhWW9003977@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 Kriston Rehberg changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |me at kriston.net --- Comment #23 from Kriston Rehberg 2008-12-05 11:43:28 EDT --- I have reported these issues upstream to both DejaVu and to FreeType. FreeType insists that this is not their bug and closed my bug within hours. That link is here: https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=25013 DejaVu insists it's a FreeType bug and closed my bug within hours. Their link is here: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15909 I hope this can be resolved somehow. It's rather ugly and embarrassing to see it in Fedora 10. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 16:53:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:53:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051653.mB5Gr3LA006187@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #24 from Luis Villa 2008-12-05 11:53:03 EDT --- Not embarrassing to see in F10; embarrassing to see in F8, F9, *and* F10. ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 16:59:25 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:59:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051659.mB5GxPgn007628@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #25 from Kriston Rehberg 2008-12-05 11:59:25 EDT --- Here are the corrected links to the upstream discussions: FreeType insists that this is not their bug and closed my bug within hours. That link is here: http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?21190 DejaVu insists it's a FreeType bug and closed my bug within hours. Their link is here: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15909 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 17:02:28 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:02:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051702.mB5H2SA4002116@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #26 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-05 12:02:27 EDT --- /me takes another look at this. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 17:04:54 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:04:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051704.mB5H4sxK002537@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #27 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-05 12:04:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) > I have reported these issues upstream to both DejaVu and to FreeType. No. You asked two *different* questions to both projects. Your problem is freetype does not render ligatures consistently with other glyphs. So ask freetype to fix their rendering of ligatures. Do not ask them to disable ligatures. Which as they noted is not their problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 17:13:33 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:13:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051713.mB5HDXwl010737@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #28 from Ben Laenen 2008-12-05 12:13:32 EDT --- Incidentally, the same bug also appears on my nokia N810 with some Debian-based distro which also uses the Freetype autohinter. At least in GTK apps, I don't have a Qt4 application on it to test it with in there, but I remember seeing it on my normal computer when trying out Fedora 10 with KDE4 a few days ago. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 18:02:34 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:02:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051802.mB5I2YGT013855@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #29 from Kriston Rehberg 2008-12-05 13:02:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #27) > (In reply to comment #23) > > I have reported these issues upstream to both DejaVu and to FreeType. > > No. You asked two *different* questions to both projects. Your problem is > freetype does not render ligatures consistently with other glyphs. So ask > freetype to fix their rendering of ligatures. Do not ask them to disable > ligatures. Which as they noted is not their problem. Actually, it is ONE question to DejaVu, and TWO questions to Freetype. Are you interested in fixing this symptom, or are you just trying to show us how smart you think you are? Stop it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 18:58:51 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 13:58:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051858.mB5Iwp7P030176@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #30 from Kevin Kofler 2008-12-05 13:58:50 EDT --- Folks, please calm down! :-) @Nicolas: Please see Kriston's corrected link (comment #25). @Kriston: Nicolas simply missed your correction, no need to flame him for that. ;-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 19:16:54 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:16:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051916.mB5JGs91001860@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #31 from Kriston Rehberg 2008-12-05 14:16:53 EDT --- FreeType's bug has a constructive comment that it could be higher up in the rendering chain. If I were to take a wild guess, I would say that when FreeType is presented with the ligature glyph it might actually be rendering it without any hinting instructions at all when the autohinter is enabled. The FreeType bug report is justified because fftype/ffdiff cannot reproduce it. Like the FreeType bug report indicates, the symptions are not reproduceable when using fftype/ffdiff Freetype test programs, but the Red Hat bug report reproduces it from the Pango level in comment #10. Additionally, this bug manifests itself in Ubuntu when Ubuntu is instructed to use the FreeType autohinter (it has the native hinter enabled by default). I don't want the use of the autohinter to be a red herring when tracking down this problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 19:27:11 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:27:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051927.mB5JRBae030979@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #33 from Kevin Kofler 2008-12-05 14:27:10 EDT --- Might this be a HarfBuzz bug? Is Pango using HarfBuzz yet? Qt 4 definitely is. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 19:23:18 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:23:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051923.mB5JNIJE030263@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #32 from Kriston Rehberg 2008-12-05 14:23:18 EDT --- >From one of the FreeType bug reports at http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?25013: >There are high chances that the autohinter doesn't render these ligature >glyphs well. However, this problem is not special to ligatures per se but can >happen with any glyph (well, it shouldn't happen with any glyph...). This is discouraging, and it's rather why I suggested that the option to disabling ligatures ought to be provided somewhere in the rendering chain. For purity's sake, the argument that ligatures should "always" be accepted is not backed up by precedent. The user already can optionally disable deltas, hinting, and kerning. It naturally follows that he must also be allowed to optionally disable ligatures if ligatures look awful. Right now, installing a clean copy of Fedora 10 (and 9,8,7, etc) you get awful ligatures. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 19:34:04 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:34:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051934.mB5JY4MO032232@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #34 from Ben Laenen 2008-12-05 14:34:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #32) > This is discouraging, and it's rather why I suggested that the option to > disabling ligatures ought to be provided somewhere in the rendering chain. I don't consider a method to disable ligatures a solution for this bug, as it doesn't do anything to fix it. I'm not saying it's not nice to have, but it should be independent from this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 19:43:45 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 14:43:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812051943.mB5JhjFF001698@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #35 from Kevin Kofler 2008-12-05 14:43:44 EDT --- But if we make the option mandatory in Fedora, the bug will be gone for good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 20:16:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:16:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052016.mB5KGUlH008384@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #36 from Kriston Rehberg 2008-12-05 15:16:29 EDT --- Upstream has thoughtful comment about ligature suppression and is also soliciting help to fix autohinting of ligatures: http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?25013 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 20:19:54 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:19:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052019.mB5KJs4G008796@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #37 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-05 15:19:53 EDT --- If you guys want to see *any* resolution, please stop wild guessing where the problem is. Or suggest random resolutions... The bug is clear: the freetype autohinter is performing badly. Either go dig the code and fix it, or don't make noise as my inbox is full enough already. Thanks, -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 20:29:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:29:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052029.mB5KTr4e015795@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #38 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-05 15:29:53 EDT --- And here is how you reproduce it with FreeType: ftstring -m 'f ? ? ? ? ? f' 13.3 /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans.ttf (copy/paste this) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 20:46:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 15:46:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052046.mB5KkknN014306@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #39 from Kriston Rehberg 2008-12-05 15:46:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #37) > If you guys want to see *any* resolution, please stop wild guessing where the > problem is. Or suggest random resolutions... > > The bug is clear: the freetype autohinter is performing badly. Either go dig > the code and fix it, or don't make noise as my inbox is full enough already. > > Thanks, It wasn't clear before, but it is clear now to you. I *cannot* reproduce it on my system using the ft2demos utilities but I can inside Mozilla and other applications. This discussion is very helpful. Investigate your email filters. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 21:04:25 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:04:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052104.mB5L4Ppj018083@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #40 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-05 16:04:24 EDT --- You can reproduce, if you copy/paste the command I gave in comment #38. Your comments mostly just confuse people. Nicolas, Ben, and I know what we are talking about. Really. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 21:08:32 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:08:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052108.mB5L8WVm018938@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #41 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-05 16:08:31 EDT --- If anyone wants to know how the autohinter works, here is a detailed paper: http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb24-3/lemberg.pdf The code lives in freetype2/src/autofit/aflatin.c and aflatin2.c. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 21:13:45 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:13:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052113.mB5LDj0H020063@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #42 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-05 16:13:44 EDT --- Took me 2min to fix the bug: diff -u -p -d -r1.65 aflatin.c --- src/autofit/aflatin.c 7 Jul 2007 07:30:39 -0000 1.65 +++ src/autofit/aflatin.c 5 Dec 2008 21:12:08 -0000 @@ -2144,6 +2144,7 @@ { 0x20A0, 0x20CF }, /* Currency Symbols */ { 0x2150, 0x218F }, /* Number Forms */ { 0x2460, 0x24FF }, /* Enclosed Alphanumerics */ + { 0xFB00, 0xFB06 }, /* Latin Ligatures */ { 0 , 0 } }; -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 21:16:00 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:16:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052116.mB5LG02E020596@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #43 from Kriston Rehberg 2008-12-05 16:15:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #40) > Your comments mostly just confuse people. Nicolas, Ben, and I know what we are > talking about. Really. If this is true then you would have already convinced upstream that it is a FreeType problem, which did not happen until I engaged the two upstream entities with my comments and efforts. I want this problem to be resolved. Your comments about other people are wholly unnecessary and we still sit here, years later, with this problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From behdad at fedoraproject.org Fri Dec 5 21:18:51 2008 From: behdad at fedoraproject.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 21:18:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/freetype/devel freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch, NONE, 1.1 freetype.spec, 1.63, 1.64 Message-ID: <20081205211851.6C048700DA@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: behdad Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/freetype/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv32708 Modified Files: freetype.spec Added Files: freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch Log Message: * Fri Dec 05 Behdad Esfahbod 2.3.7-2 - Add freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch - Resolves: #368561 freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch: --- NEW FILE freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch --- Index: src/autofit/aflatin.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/freetype/freetype2/src/autofit/aflatin.c,v retrieving revision 1.65 diff -u -p -d -r1.65 aflatin.c --- src/autofit/aflatin.c 7 Jul 2007 07:30:39 -0000 1.65 +++ src/autofit/aflatin.c 5 Dec 2008 21:15:46 -0000 @@ -2144,6 +2144,7 @@ { 0x20A0, 0x20CF }, /* Currency Symbols */ { 0x2150, 0x218F }, /* Number Forms */ { 0x2460, 0x24FF }, /* Enclosed Alphanumerics */ + { 0xFB00, 0xFB06 }, /* Latin Ligatures */ { 0 , 0 } }; Index: freetype.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/freetype/devel/freetype.spec,v retrieving revision 1.63 retrieving revision 1.64 diff -u -r1.63 -r1.64 --- freetype.spec 14 Aug 2008 15:41:06 -0000 1.63 +++ freetype.spec 5 Dec 2008 21:18:20 -0000 1.64 @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@ # Patented bytecode interpreter and patented subpixel rendering disabled by default. # Pass '--with bytecode_interpreter' and '--with subpixel_rendering' on rpmbuild # command-line to enable them. +%define _with_subpixel_rendering 1} +%define _without_subpixel_rendering 0} %{!?_with_bytecode_interpreter: %{!?_without_bytecode_interpreter: %define _without_bytecode_interpreter --without-bytecode_interpreter}} %{!?_with_subpixel_rendering: %{!?_without_subpixel_rendering: %define _without_subpixel_rendering --without-subpixel_rendering}} @@ -9,7 +11,7 @@ Summary: A free and portable font rendering engine Name: freetype Version: 2.3.7 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} License: FTL or GPLv2+ Group: System Environment/Libraries URL: http://www.freetype.org @@ -32,6 +34,7 @@ Patch89: freetype-2.2.1-memcpy-fix.patch # Upstream patches +Patch101: freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) @@ -93,6 +96,8 @@ %patch88 -p1 -b .multilib %patch89 -p1 -b .memcpy +%patch101 -p0 -b .autohinter-ligature + %build %configure --disable-static @@ -208,6 +213,10 @@ %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ %changelog +* Fri Dec 05 Behdad Esfahbod 2.3.7-2 +- Add freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch +- Resolves: #368561 + * Tue Aug 14 2008 Behdad Esfahbod 2.3.7-1 - Update to 2.3.7 From behdad at fedoraproject.org Fri Dec 5 21:20:51 2008 From: behdad at fedoraproject.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 21:20:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/freetype/devel freetype.spec,1.64,1.65 Message-ID: <20081205212051.07623700DA@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: behdad Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/freetype/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv559 Modified Files: freetype.spec Log Message: Fix changelog Index: freetype.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/freetype/devel/freetype.spec,v retrieving revision 1.64 retrieving revision 1.65 diff -u -r1.64 -r1.65 --- freetype.spec 5 Dec 2008 21:18:20 -0000 1.64 +++ freetype.spec 5 Dec 2008 21:20:20 -0000 1.65 @@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ %changelog -* Fri Dec 05 Behdad Esfahbod 2.3.7-2 +* Fri Dec 05 2008 Behdad Esfahbod 2.3.7-2 - Add freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch - Resolves: #368561 From behdad at fedoraproject.org Fri Dec 5 21:21:20 2008 From: behdad at fedoraproject.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 21:21:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/freetype/F-10 freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch, NONE, 1.1 freetype.spec, 1.63, 1.64 Message-ID: <20081205212120.9131F700DA@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: behdad Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/freetype/F-10 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv716 Modified Files: freetype.spec Added Files: freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch Log Message: * Fri Dec 05 2008 Behdad Esfahbod 2.3.7-2 - Add freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch - Resolves: #368561 freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch: --- NEW FILE freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch --- Index: src/autofit/aflatin.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/freetype/freetype2/src/autofit/aflatin.c,v retrieving revision 1.65 diff -u -p -d -r1.65 aflatin.c --- src/autofit/aflatin.c 7 Jul 2007 07:30:39 -0000 1.65 +++ src/autofit/aflatin.c 5 Dec 2008 21:15:46 -0000 @@ -2144,6 +2144,7 @@ { 0x20A0, 0x20CF }, /* Currency Symbols */ { 0x2150, 0x218F }, /* Number Forms */ { 0x2460, 0x24FF }, /* Enclosed Alphanumerics */ + { 0xFB00, 0xFB06 }, /* Latin Ligatures */ { 0 , 0 } }; Index: freetype.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/freetype/F-10/freetype.spec,v retrieving revision 1.63 retrieving revision 1.64 diff -u -r1.63 -r1.64 --- freetype.spec 14 Aug 2008 15:41:06 -0000 1.63 +++ freetype.spec 5 Dec 2008 21:20:50 -0000 1.64 @@ -1,6 +1,8 @@ # Patented bytecode interpreter and patented subpixel rendering disabled by default. # Pass '--with bytecode_interpreter' and '--with subpixel_rendering' on rpmbuild # command-line to enable them. +%define _with_subpixel_rendering 1} +%define _without_subpixel_rendering 0} %{!?_with_bytecode_interpreter: %{!?_without_bytecode_interpreter: %define _without_bytecode_interpreter --without-bytecode_interpreter}} %{!?_with_subpixel_rendering: %{!?_without_subpixel_rendering: %define _without_subpixel_rendering --without-subpixel_rendering}} @@ -9,7 +11,7 @@ Summary: A free and portable font rendering engine Name: freetype Version: 2.3.7 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} License: FTL or GPLv2+ Group: System Environment/Libraries URL: http://www.freetype.org @@ -32,6 +34,7 @@ Patch89: freetype-2.2.1-memcpy-fix.patch # Upstream patches +Patch101: freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) @@ -93,6 +96,8 @@ %patch88 -p1 -b .multilib %patch89 -p1 -b .memcpy +%patch101 -p0 -b .autohinter-ligature + %build %configure --disable-static @@ -208,6 +213,10 @@ %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ %changelog +* Fri Dec 05 2008 Behdad Esfahbod 2.3.7-2 +- Add freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch +- Resolves: #368561 + * Tue Aug 14 2008 Behdad Esfahbod 2.3.7-1 - Update to 2.3.7 From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 21:22:08 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:22:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052122.mB5LM8Hi026267@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #44 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-05 16:22:08 EDT --- Already building fixed package for rawhide and F-10... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 21:26:02 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:26:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052126.mB5LQ2H0027042@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #45 from Kriston Rehberg 2008-12-05 16:26:01 EDT --- I just tested your fix and it has indeed fixed it for Mozilla and the other applications I have seen it in. Also fixed with: pango-view --font 'dejavu sans 10' --dpi 96 --text 'f f ff fi f f' Are you submitting to upstream after building the RPMS? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 21:28:15 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:28:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052128.mB5LSFE5023239@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #47 from Ben Laenen 2008-12-05 16:28:14 EDT --- > (In reply to comment #12) > So I would expect Freetype to have a glyph list containing all Latin letters to > get its autohinter metrics from, and that list doesn't contain the fi > ligatures. If that's the case, it should be as easy as just adding them to that > list. But of course, I have no idea how Freetype's autohinter works :-) Looks like I knew what I was talking about above :-) Anyway, I'd like to see how the autohinter would handle it when the ligatures are not encoded at those code points, but out of bounds (i.e. without code points, only reachable with opentype features), as is done in some fonts... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 21:27:31 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:27:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052127.mB5LRVDV023158@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #46 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-05 16:27:31 EDT --- Submitted upstream already. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 21:32:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:32:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052132.mB5LWKp3028258@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 Behdad Esfahbod changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #48 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-05 16:32:18 EDT --- In rawhide already. Koji is down. I'll push to F10 updates-testing after it comes back. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 21:33:28 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:33:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052133.mB5LXSQ7024330@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #49 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-05 16:33:28 EDT --- It's not going to happen if the glyphs are not bound to the ligature characters. If any font doesn't have those, that's a font bug then. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 21:39:36 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:39:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052139.mB5Ldawv025456@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #51 from Luis Villa 2008-12-05 16:39:36 EDT --- Awesome, thanks, Behdad! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 21:38:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:38:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052138.mB5LckTb025336@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #50 from Kevin Kofler 2008-12-05 16:38:46 EDT --- What about F8 and F9? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 21:42:55 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:42:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052142.mB5Lgt6e026398@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #52 from Ben Laenen 2008-12-05 16:42:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #49) > It's not going to happen if the glyphs are not bound to the ligature > characters. If any font doesn't have those, that's a font bug then. Not really. The U+FB00-... code points aren't mandatory for the fi ligatures (just like it's not mandatory to use the Arabic presentation forms for contextual forms of Arabic letters). These code points are there for compatibility reasons with legacy encodings. Also, there are much more possible Latin ligatures that don't have reserved code points, like fb, fh, f? etc. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 21:48:11 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:48:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052148.mB5LmBfX027373@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #53 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-05 16:48:11 EDT --- Ben, I know that. What I'm saying is that it's impossibly hard to do it without those in FreeType. So, in that case we can blame the font because there's an easy fix for it. Luis, 'welcome. Kevin, feel free to build for those. Anyone else should feel free too. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 5 22:20:34 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:20:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812052220.mB5MKYY4000633@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #54 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-05 17:20:33 EDT --- freetype-2.3.7-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freetype-2.3.7-2.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 06:06:24 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 22:06:24 -0800 Subject: [Bug 458169] [@font-face] implement downloadable font support on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812060606.mB666NUR007162@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458169 Bug 458169 depends on bug 467874, which changed state. Bug 467874 Summary: cairo calls FT_Done_Face on FT_Faces for unscaled_fonts created from_face https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=467874 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 06:58:05 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 22:58:05 -0800 Subject: [Bug 70132] Support @font-face In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812060658.mB66w5O9015547@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70132 Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |468218 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 07:20:30 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:20:30 -0800 Subject: [Bug 458169] [@font-face] implement downloadable font support on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812060720.mB67KUgv021129@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458169 Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #351146|src:url() v1.1 - use |src:url() v1.1 - use description|cairo's FT_Library |cairo's FT_Library [pushed | |to m-c] --- Comment #22 from Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) 2008-12-05 23:20:22 PST --- (From update of attachment 351146) I pushed this to m-c with one small change to the font used to find the FT_Library - new gfxPangoFontGroup(NS_LITERAL_STRING("\"sans-serif\""), + new gfxPangoFontGroup(NS_LITERAL_STRING("sans-serif"), so as to use mozilla default font (which is often the system default) instead of just the system default. http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e6c31f12b879 http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/b09d5673573e -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 07:22:04 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:22:04 -0800 Subject: [Bug 458169] [@font-face] implement downloadable font support on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812060722.mB67M4Cs021804@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458169 Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED Target Milestone|mozilla1.9.1 |mozilla1.9.1b3 --- Comment #23 from Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) 2008-12-05 23:21:51 PST --- Fixed on mozilla-central. Needs to land on 1.9.1. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 07:22:58 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 23:22:58 -0800 Subject: [Bug 70132] Support @font-face In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812060722.mB67MwB5023406@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70132 Bug 70132 depends on bug 458169, which changed state. Bug 458169 Summary: [@font-face] implement downloadable font support on Linux https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458169 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 08:23:29 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 00:23:29 -0800 Subject: [Bug 458169] [@font-face] implement downloadable font support on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812060823.mB68NTsC004278@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458169 --- Comment #24 from David Baron [:dbaron] 2008-12-06 00:23:19 PST --- (In reply to comment #22) > I pushed this to m-c with one small change to the font used to find the > FT_Library > > - new gfxPangoFontGroup(NS_LITERAL_STRING("\"sans-serif\""), > + new gfxPangoFontGroup(NS_LITERAL_STRING("sans-serif"), > > so as to use mozilla default font (which is often the system default) instead > of just the system default. Whether Mozilla's default is serif or sans-serif is controlled by the font.default.[langGroup] preferences (and maybe also the font.default preference). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 09:40:28 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 01:40:28 -0800 Subject: [Bug 458169] [@font-face] implement downloadable font support on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812060940.mB69eS6q016991@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458169 --- Comment #25 from Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) 2008-12-06 01:40:17 PST --- (In reply to comment #24) > (In reply to comment #22) > > I pushed this to m-c with one small change to the font used to find the > > FT_Library > > > > - new gfxPangoFontGroup(NS_LITERAL_STRING("\"sans-serif\""), > > + new gfxPangoFontGroup(NS_LITERAL_STRING("sans-serif"), > > > > so as to use mozilla default font (which is often the system default) instead > > of just the system default. I had intended to explain with an indefinite article here: "use _a_ mozilla default font", but managed to leave that out of the explanation. > Whether Mozilla's default is serif or sans-serif is controlled by the > font.default.[langGroup] preferences (and maybe also the font.default > preference). Yes. In this particular situation, the precise font is of little importantance, as all fonts will give us the same FT_Library. Using a default (generic) font is an attempt to avoid another font being opened through FreeType. You've made me aware that the default langGroup on the gfxFontStyle of "x-unicode" will cause the pref "font.name.sans-serif.x-unicode" to be used. The default value for this pref is "\"sans-serif\"", which would resolve to a font suitable for the language of the user's locale, but if the pref has been modified, it becomes more likely that it could be a font quite different from what would normally be used for their language from font.name.[generic].[langGroup from locale]. However, the issues here are not worth any extra code to look up preferences. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 6 09:59:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 04:59:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474514] file conflict on upgrading In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812060959.mB69xbrd018873@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474514 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|UPSTREAM | --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-06 04:59:36 EDT --- I probably did something wrong, but I could not reproduce the fix with the test font packages at http://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/ yum groupupdate Fonts Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package dejavu-fonts-sans.noarch 0:2.27-7.fc11 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: dejavu-fonts-common = 2.27-7.fc11 for package: dejavu-fonts-sans ---> Package cjkunifonts-uming.noarch 0:0.2.20080216.1-9.2.fc11 set to be updated ---> Package dejavu-fonts-serif.noarch 0:2.27-7.fc11 set to be updated ---> Package dejavu-fonts-sans-mono.noarch 0:2.27-7.fc11 set to be updated ---> Package thaifonts-scalable.noarch 0:0.4.9-3.fc9 set to be updated --> Running transaction check ---> Package dejavu-fonts-common.noarch 0:2.27-7.fc11 set to be updated --> Processing Conflict: dejavu-fonts-serif conflicts dejavu-fonts-experimental < 2.26-3 --> Processing Conflict: dejavu-fonts-serif conflicts dejavu-fonts < 2.26-3 --> Processing Conflict: dejavu-fonts-sans-mono conflicts dejavu-fonts-experimental < 2.26-3 --> Processing Conflict: dejavu-fonts-sans-mono conflicts dejavu-fonts < 2.26-3 --> Processing Conflict: dejavu-fonts-sans conflicts dejavu-fonts-experimental < 2.26-3 --> Processing Conflict: dejavu-fonts-sans conflicts dejavu-fonts < 2.26-3 --> Restarting Dependency Resolution with new changes. --> Running transaction check ---> Package dejavu-fonts-compat.noarch 0:2.27-7.fc11 set to be updated --> Finished Dependency Resolution dejavu-fonts-serif-2.27-7.fc11.noarch from local has depsolving problems --> dejavu-fonts-serif conflicts with dejavu-fonts dejavu-fonts-sans-2.27-7.fc11.noarch from local has depsolving problems --> dejavu-fonts-sans conflicts with dejavu-fonts-experimental dejavu-fonts-sans-2.27-7.fc11.noarch from local has depsolving problems --> dejavu-fonts-sans conflicts with dejavu-fonts dejavu-fonts-sans-mono-2.27-7.fc11.noarch from local has depsolving problems --> dejavu-fonts-sans-mono conflicts with dejavu-fonts dejavu-fonts-sans-mono-2.27-7.fc11.noarch from local has depsolving problems --> dejavu-fonts-sans-mono conflicts with dejavu-fonts-experimental Error: dejavu-fonts-sans-mono conflicts with dejavu-fonts Error: dejavu-fonts-sans-mono conflicts with dejavu-fonts-experimental Error: dejavu-fonts-sans conflicts with dejavu-fonts Error: dejavu-fonts-sans conflicts with dejavu-fonts-experimental Error: dejavu-fonts-serif conflicts with dejavu-fonts -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 10:27:59 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 02:27:59 -0800 Subject: [Bug 458169] [@font-face] implement downloadable font support on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061027.mB6ARxAp023490@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458169 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net --- Comment #26 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-06 02:27:48 PST --- Please take a look at bug #414427 on font defaults. Any program (firefox included) that does not use the common system defaults but hardcodes its own preferences is broken by design. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 6 13:27:41 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 08:27:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473552] Fix dejavu-* dependencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061327.mB6DRf8i023902@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473552 Balint Cristian changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ON_DEV -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 6 14:05:40 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:05:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 434753] Sometimes can't display VLGothic via "sansserif" family. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061405.mB6E5eTq031221@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434753 --- Comment #10 from Makoto Mizukami 2008-12-06 09:05:39 EDT --- Thank you for your assignation, Akira! OK, I will test it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 16:52:23 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 08:52:23 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061652.mB6GqNX3010636@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 David Baron [:dbaron] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|Shell Integration |GFX: Thebes Product|Firefox |Core Summary|fonts: firefox should |Should use "Document font" |respect gnome settings |and "Fixed width font" | |families from gnome | |settings QAContact|shell.integration at firefox.b |thebes at gfx.bugs |ugs | --- Comment #8 from David Baron [:dbaron] 2008-12-06 08:52:18 PST --- Resummarizing bug to match the original request and moving to a possibly correct component (it's really split between the style system and gfx). (If you want a bug about using gnome's font size as well, as comment 7 suggests, that should be filed as a *separate* bug report, although we're unlikely to do it. Please avoid further discussion of that issue here.) I'm also not sure how well this proposal would work across languages; there may be some language groups that really do prefer defaulting to serif rather than sans-serif, I think, but is GNOME's default always sans, and isn't language-group-specific? (If it's locale-specific, that's even worse; I'd really prefer that English Web pages display the same by default on any locale system, and likewise for Japanese Web pages, etc.) Given the amount of work involved (relative to the amount of benefit, which seems to me only questionably positive), this doesn't seem like a particularly high priority to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 17:31:38 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:31:38 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061731.mB6HVcjr019180@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 --- Comment #9 from Felix Miata 2008-12-06 09:31:37 PST --- (In reply to comment #8) > If you want a bug about using gnome's font size as well, as comment 7 suggests, > that should be filed as a *separate* bug report That seems to have already been filed as bug 412669 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 17:45:16 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:45:16 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061745.mB6HjGP5023238@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |Nicolas.Mailhot at laPoste.net --- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-06 09:45:08 PST --- (In reply to comment #8) > I'm also not sure how well this proposal would work across languages; there may > be some language groups that really do prefer defaulting to serif rather than > sans-serif, I think, but is GNOME's default always sans, and isn't > language-group-specific? The request is to hook in the current desktop settings exposed via XSettings to apps. Those settings are already QAed for i18n, because you know, every well behaved app installed uses them, so they better work. They correspond to fonts actually installed on the system and to the user actual preferences. A user can choose a serif default or even a specific font family if he so wishes. There is *zero* value added in trying to bypass those settings by using different lists. > (If it's locale-specific, that's even worse; I'd > really prefer that English Web pages display the same by default on any locale > system, and likewise for Japanese Web pages, etc.) It's not locale-specific. > Given the amount of work involved (relative to the amount of benefit, which > seems to me only questionably positive), I think you do not understand the benefit. The benefit for the user is Firefox just works like his other apps. As opposed to Firefox behaving weirdly, trying to use different settings that other applications, trying to use fonts not available on the system, and ignoring fonts actually installed. The web is littered with Linux users asking why the hell Firefox is misbehaving and using different fonts than other apps. The user should not have to configure font settings in Firefox when his desktop settings already work (either because the defaults were fine or because he changed them to suit his tastes). Especially given the Firefox font defaults UI is not exactly user-friendly. The Linux situation is very different from the Windows situation where Firefox can just use the proprietary Microsoft fonts. Linux font offerings are very diverse and the default prefs.js Firefox settings are almost always wrong for this platform. > this doesn't seem like a particularly high priority to me. It is sad to see that Mozilla developpers continue to have so little understanding of free and open systems. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 17:52:59 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:52:59 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061752.mB6Hqxsw024585@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 --- Comment #11 from David Baron [:dbaron] 2008-12-06 09:52:53 PST --- (In reply to comment #10) > The Linux situation is very different from the Windows situation where Firefox > can just use the proprietary Microsoft fonts. Linux font offerings are very > diverse and the default prefs.js Firefox settings are almost always wrong for > this platform. Um, our default fonts on Linux are either 'serif' or 'sans-serif', which both map to fontconfig default sets. So I don't see how the diversity is relevant here; we're already picking it up automatically. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 17:56:49 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 09:56:49 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061756.mB6HunLQ026085@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 --- Comment #12 from David Baron [:dbaron] 2008-12-06 09:56:45 PST --- Well, either 'serif' or 'sans-serif' for variable-width fonts (depending on language group); for fixed-width fonts it's 'monospace', of course. See the default values of the font.name.* and font.default.* prefs in about:config. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 18:04:13 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 10:04:13 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061804.mB6I4DJI027696@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 --- Comment #13 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-06 10:04:09 PST --- But that does not pick the user-level defaults exposed by XSettings. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 18:12:06 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 10:12:06 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061812.mB6IC5gP029142@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 --- Comment #14 from David Baron [:dbaron] 2008-12-06 10:11:58 PST --- I know that, but it refutes your point that fixing this bug would make Firefox use the diversity of fonts better. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 18:46:37 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 10:46:37 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061846.mB6Ikb9Q004672@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 --- Comment #15 from Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek 2008-12-06 10:46:33 PST --- I think it would be good, since it would affect only elements on webpage that have no font-family defined in CSS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 18:57:24 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 10:57:24 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061857.mB6IvOFL007178@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 --- Comment #16 from David Baron [:dbaron] 2008-12-06 10:57:13 PST --- (In reply to comment #15) > I think it would be good, since it would affect only elements on webpage that > have no font-family defined in CSS. That's not true; our font preferences define the user's preference for the CSS generic families 'serif' and 'sans-serif', and then choose which one is the default. So if we have a different default font, that implies having a different value for either 'serif' or 'sans-serif', which means that either Web pages that specify: font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; or: font-family: "Times New Roman", Times, serif; will display differently, assuming you don't have Helvetica, Arial, Times New Roman, and Times. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 19:00:20 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 11:00:20 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061900.mB6J0Kwp007687@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 --- Comment #17 from Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek 2008-12-06 11:00:12 PST --- It was a "thought-shortcut", don't worry, I know about such situations. The problem is that default font set is different on all platforms, but SVG fonts and downloadable fonts (CSS3) will help it change in future. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 19:00:35 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 11:00:35 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061900.mB6J0Za9008086@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 --- Comment #18 from David Baron [:dbaron] 2008-12-06 11:00:26 PST --- And it also affects the case where the Web page specifies only fonts that aren't available, without a generic, like: font-family: Helvetica, Arial; -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 19:30:14 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 11:30:14 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812061930.mB6JUEX1013770@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 Masayuki Nakano (Mozilla Japan) changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |masayuki at d-toybox.com --- Comment #19 from Masayuki Nakano (Mozilla Japan) 2008-12-06 11:30:09 PST --- (In reply to comment #17) > It was a "thought-shortcut", don't worry, I know about such situations. The > problem is that default font set is different on all platforms, but SVG fonts > and downloadable fonts (CSS3) will help it change in future. This is not true for Chinese and Japanese. The downloadable fonts are usable only in some languages which don't have many characters. If many web sites prepare the downloadable fonts for Chinese or Japanese characters, users need to download the large font files on each web sites. The file size is several MB at least. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 20:21:41 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 12:21:41 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812062021.mB6KLfH7025574@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 --- Comment #20 from Jakub 'Livio' Rusinek 2008-12-06 12:21:31 PST --- Now I could say that this is your problem, but I understand that pain, when you can't use your language's own characters when writing a text. But hey, doesn't China and Japan have fast Internet links? In Poland that could be a problem when we would use Japanese/Chinese characters, because most of our Internet links used by people isn't 1 Mbps, but you have 1 Mbps as minimum, probably, don't you? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 20:25:05 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 12:25:05 -0800 Subject: [Bug 412669] Make the default HTML font size be dependent on the default UI font size In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812062025.mB6KP54J026375@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=412669 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 20:45:05 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 12:45:05 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812062045.mB6Kj5X3031325@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 --- Comment #21 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-06 12:45:03 PST --- (In reply to comment #19) > This is not true for Chinese and Japanese. The downloadable fonts are usable > only in some languages which don't have many characters. If many web sites > prepare the downloadable fonts for Chinese or Japanese characters, users need > to download the large font files on each web sites. The file size is several MB > at least. BTW for this problem you should probably look at bug #467729 Not a transient font download, but actual long-term font installation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 21:07:23 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:07:23 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812062107.mB6L7NsF004087@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 --- Comment #22 from Masayuki Nakano (Mozilla Japan) 2008-12-06 13:07:20 PST --- 1 Mbps is not much faster for CJ fonts downloading. And such large link speed should not be used for fonts. Note that the downloadable fonts are not realistic by the cost too. E.g., there are few free Japanese fonts. Because the Chinese characters which are used in Japan are very many. (E.g., Joyo Kanji is about 2000 characters, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%8Dy%C5%8D_kanji ) Generally, one Japanese font which is for screen is about 10 thousand yen or more... Of course, such fonts cannot be uploaded for downloadable fonts. So, the free Japanese downloadable fonts are not realistic in future too. I think that the current our font preferences are best solution for CSS rendering. The fonts of web contents are customizable by users and web designers. The gnome font setting didn't assume such customizable contents in applications, probably. So, maybe, we don't need to honor the settings in web contents. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Sat Dec 6 21:41:14 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 13:41:14 -0800 Subject: [Bug 414427] Should use "Document font" and "Fixed width font" families from gnome settings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812062141.mB6LfEvH013981@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414427 --- Comment #23 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-06 13:41:09 PST --- I'm quite sure Japanese users like others have no wish to have fonts working in Firefox but not other apps (or the reverse), so Firefox-level preferences which are different from desktop preferences just double their configuration burden for no win at all -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 7 04:17:04 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:17:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 463036] LiberationSans-Bold 'u' and 'W' blurred in smaller sizes. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812070417.mB74H4pR014754@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463036 Bug Zapper changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |10 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA --- Comment #5 from Bug Zapper 2008-11-25 22:09:36 EDT --- This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle. Changing version to '10'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-06 23:17:03 EDT --- liberation-fonts-1.04.92-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update liberation-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2008-10773 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 7 04:20:52 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:20:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 466667] cjkunifont install packages in inexistent directory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812070420.mB74KqNe018489@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466667 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 7 04:20:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 23:20:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 466667] cjkunifont install packages in inexistent directory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812070420.mB74KoG7016228@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466667 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-06 23:20:49 EDT --- cjkunifonts-0.2.20080216.1-9.2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From mtasaka at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 7 04:27:52 2008 From: mtasaka at fedoraproject.org (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 04:27:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/pango/devel pango.spec,1.149,1.150 Message-ID: <20081207042752.5FBF6700DE@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: mtasaka Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/pango/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv14205 Modified Files: pango.spec Log Message: * Sun Dec 7 2008 Mamoru Tasaka - 1.22.3-2 - Rebuild for pkgconfig provides Index: pango.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/pango/devel/pango.spec,v retrieving revision 1.149 retrieving revision 1.150 diff -u -r1.149 -r1.150 --- pango.spec 25 Nov 2008 03:40:42 -0000 1.149 +++ pango.spec 7 Dec 2008 04:27:21 -0000 1.150 @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Summary: System for layout and rendering of internationalized text Name: pango Version: 1.22.3 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} License: LGPLv2+ Group: System Environment/Libraries Source: http://download.gnome.org/sources/pango/1.22/pango-%{version}.tar.bz2 @@ -224,6 +224,9 @@ %changelog +* Sun Dec 7 2008 Mamoru Tasaka - 1.22.3-2 +- Rebuild for pkgconfig provides + * Mon Nov 24 2008 Matthias Clasen - 1.22.3-1 - U[date to 1.22.3 From behdad at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 7 09:09:13 2008 From: behdad at fedoraproject.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 09:09:13 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/cjkunifonts/F-10 cjkunifonts.spec,1.22,1.23 Message-ID: <20081207090913.993ED700DE@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: behdad Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/cjkunifonts/F-10 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv26794 Modified Files: cjkunifonts.spec Log Message: * Sun Dec 7 2008 Behdad Esfahbod - * 0.2.20080216.1-9.3.fc10 - Don't umask before fc-cache. - Add -f to fc-cache. Index: cjkunifonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/cjkunifonts/F-10/cjkunifonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.22 retrieving revision 1.23 diff -u -r1.22 -r1.23 --- cjkunifonts.spec 1 Dec 2008 05:23:52 -0000 1.22 +++ cjkunifonts.spec 7 Dec 2008 09:08:43 -0000 1.23 @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Name: cjkunifonts Version: 0.2.20080216.1 -Release: 9.2.fc10 +Release: 10.fc10 Summary: Chinese TrueType Fonts -- Simplified and Traditional Chinese Ming and Kai Face License: Arphic Group: User Interface/X @@ -118,30 +118,26 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %post uming -umask 133 if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{umingfontdir} + %{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{umingfontdir} fi %post ukai -umask 133 if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{ukaifontdir} + %{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{ukaifontdir} fi %postun uming if [ "$1" = 0 ]; then - umask 133 if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts + %{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{_datadir}/fonts fi fi %postun ukai if [ "$1" = 0 ]; then - umask 133 if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts + %{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{_datadir}/fonts fi fi @@ -202,6 +198,10 @@ %{catalogue}/%{name}-ukai %changelog +* Sun Dec 7 2008 Behdad Esfahbod - 0.2.20080216.1-10.fc10 +- Don't umask before fc-cache. +- Add -f to fc-cache. + * Mon Dec 01 2008 Caius Chance - 0.2.20080216.1-9.2.fc10 - Rebuild for Fedora 10. From behdad at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 7 09:13:32 2008 From: behdad at fedoraproject.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 09:13:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/cjkunifonts/devel cjkunifonts.spec,1.21,1.22 Message-ID: <20081207091332.73487700DE@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: behdad Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/cjkunifonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27426 Modified Files: cjkunifonts.spec Log Message: Sun Dec 7 2008 Behdad Esfahbod - 0.2.20080216.1-10.fc11 - Don't umask before fc-cache. - Add -f to fc-cache. Index: cjkunifonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/cjkunifonts/devel/cjkunifonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.21 retrieving revision 1.22 diff -u -r1.21 -r1.22 --- cjkunifonts.spec 29 Oct 2008 01:26:52 -0000 1.21 +++ cjkunifonts.spec 7 Dec 2008 09:13:01 -0000 1.22 @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Name: cjkunifonts Version: 0.2.20080216.1 -Release: 9.2.fc11 +Release: 10.fc11 #Release: 9.1%{?dist} Summary: Chinese TrueType Fonts -- Simplified and Traditional Chinese Ming and Kai Face License: Arphic @@ -119,30 +119,26 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %post uming -umask 133 if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{umingfontdir} + %{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{umingfontdir} fi %post ukai -umask 133 if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{ukaifontdir} + %{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{ukaifontdir} fi %postun uming if [ "$1" = 0 ]; then - umask 133 if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts + %{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{_datadir}/fonts fi fi %postun ukai if [ "$1" = 0 ]; then - umask 133 if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts + %{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{_datadir}/fonts fi fi @@ -203,6 +199,10 @@ %{catalogue}/%{name}-ukai %changelog +* Sun Dec 7 2008 Behdad Esfahbod - 0.2.20080216.1-10.fc11 +- Don't umask before fc-cache. +- Add -f to fc-cache. + * Wed Oct 29 2008 Caius Chance - 0.2.20080216.1-9.2.fc11 - Resolves: rhbz#466667 (Reverted to 0.2.20080216.1-4 without conf.avail.) From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 7 11:57:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 06:57:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474045] there is a newer upstream version available (4.28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812071157.mB7BvkxT031611@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474045 --- Comment #3 from Lev Shamardin 2008-12-07 06:57:45 EDT --- I can provide some justification why I ask for these patches. These patches change the shape of the characters which are (in unicode notation) cyrillic small letter ve, cyrillic small letter de, cyrillic small letter ghe and cyrillic small letter i. The default shape of these letters in terminus font is more common for a written script shape, or for italic shape of some fonts. All other cyrillic letter shapes of this font are more common for a printed script shapes. I can provide you with examples of these letters in other printed and scripted fonts. I attach a file which has samples of these four letters rendered with different fonts. If you compare the shapes you can conclude that the shape of these letters without patches corresponds more to an italic or script font, but not for a regular face. That is why I'm asking to apply these patches by default. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 7 11:58:32 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 06:58:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474045] there is a newer upstream version available (4.28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812071158.mB7BwWcT029432@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474045 --- Comment #4 from Lev Shamardin 2008-12-07 06:58:31 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326038) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326038) sample letters de, ve, ghe, i in different fonts -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From ndim at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 7 12:49:29 2008 From: ndim at fedoraproject.org (Hans Ulrich Niedermann) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:49:29 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/terminus-font/devel .cvsignore, 1.3, 1.4 sources, 1.3, 1.4 terminus-font-console.README.fedora, 1.2, 1.3 terminus-font.spec, 1.7, 1.8 Message-ID: <20081207124929.7111F70100@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: ndim Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv29104 Modified Files: .cvsignore sources terminus-font-console.README.fedora terminus-font.spec Log Message: * Sun Sep 21 2008 Hans Ulrich Niedermann - 4.28-1 - Update to upstream's 4.28 release. - Add -dv1, -ge1, -ij1 patches for more general appeal in cyrillic world. - Add notes for framebuffer console to terminus-font-console.README.fedora. Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/devel/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- .cvsignore 17 May 2008 22:27:17 -0000 1.3 +++ .cvsignore 7 Dec 2008 12:48:56 -0000 1.4 @@ -1 +1,4 @@ -terminus-font-4.26.tar.gz +terminus-font-4.28.tar.gz +terminus-font-4.28-dv1.diff.gz +terminus-font-4.28-ge1.diff.gz +terminus-font-4.28-ij1.diff.gz Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/devel/sources,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- sources 17 May 2008 22:27:17 -0000 1.3 +++ sources 7 Dec 2008 12:48:57 -0000 1.4 @@ -1 +1,4 @@ -a0352316f3b983ddc670b25ab166094e terminus-font-4.26.tar.gz +15bf2f17b625312383fd9dae0925a17e terminus-font-4.28.tar.gz +74e2db5288065403a58c28672590c1cd terminus-font-4.28-dv1.diff.gz +7815830460294d79d8508199499e1408 terminus-font-4.28-ge1.diff.gz +54ea26d7671d57d611ee4229f000fc10 terminus-font-4.28-ij1.diff.gz Index: terminus-font-console.README.fedora =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/devel/terminus-font-console.README.fedora,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- terminus-font-console.README.fedora 17 May 2008 23:01:20 -0000 1.2 +++ terminus-font-console.README.fedora 7 Dec 2008 12:48:57 -0000 1.3 @@ -10,12 +10,14 @@ /lib/kbd/consolefonts/README.terminus - * You can manually change the font for the Linux VGA textmode console - by running something like + * You can manually change the font for the Linux VGA textmode or + framebuffer console by running something like /bin/setfont /lib/kbd/consolefonts/ter-u16b.psf.gz - TBD: How to do that on a Linux framebuffer console? + Note that using a font of a different font size will change the + $COLUMNS and $LINES of the terminal together with the changed + font size. * To make the above setting permanent, adapt the file Index: terminus-font.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/devel/terminus-font.spec,v retrieving revision 1.7 retrieving revision 1.8 diff -u -r1.7 -r1.8 --- terminus-font.spec 17 May 2008 23:01:20 -0000 1.7 +++ terminus-font.spec 7 Dec 2008 12:48:57 -0000 1.8 @@ -1,16 +1,19 @@ Name: terminus-font -Version: 4.26 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Version: 4.28 +Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Clean fixed width font BuildArch: noarch Group: User Interface/X License: GPLv2+ -URL: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/jimmy-en.html +URL: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/ Source0: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Source10: terminus-font-console.README.fedora Source20: terminus-font-x11.README.fedora Source21: terminus-font-x11.Xresources.example +Patch11: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/%{name}-%{version}-dv1.diff.gz +Patch12: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/%{name}-%{version}-ge1.diff.gz +Patch13: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/%{name}-%{version}-ij1.diff.gz BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) BuildRequires: /usr/bin/bdftopcf @@ -34,12 +37,10 @@ The Terminus Font is designed for long (8 and more hours per day) work with computers. -Version 4.26 contains 752 characters, covering code pages -ISO8859-1/2/5/7/9/13/15/16, IBM-437/852/855/866, KOI8-R/U/E/F, -Windows-1250/1251/1252/1253/1254/1257, Paratype-PT154/PT254, -Bulgarian-MIK, Macintosh-Ukrainian, Esperanto and many others -(a total of about 115 language sets). Also included are the -IBM VGA, vt100 and xterm pseudographic characters. +Version 4.28 contains 825 characters, covers about 120 language +sets and supports ISO8859-1/2/5/7/9/13/15/16, Paratype-PT154/PT254, +KOI8-R/U/E/F, Esperanto, many IBM, Windows and Macintosh code pages, +as well as the IBM VGA, vt100 and xterm pseudographic characters. The sizes present are 6x12, 8x14, 8x16, 10x20, 12x24, 14x28 and 16x32. The styles are normal and bold (except for 6x12), @@ -105,6 +106,9 @@ %prep %setup -q +%patch11 -p0 -b .dv1 +%patch12 -p0 -b .ge1 +%patch13 -p0 -b .ij1 %build @@ -551,6 +555,11 @@ %changelog +* Sun Sep 21 2008 Hans Ulrich Niedermann - 4.28-1 +- Update to upstream's 4.28 release. +- Add -dv1, -ge1, -ij1 patches for more general appeal in cyrillic world. +- Add notes for framebuffer console to terminus-font-console.README.fedora. + * Sun May 18 2008 Hans Ulrich Niedermann - 4.26-2 - Update README.fedora for console fonts with answers. - Make sure scriptlets never fail. From ndim at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 7 12:54:35 2008 From: ndim at fedoraproject.org (Hans Ulrich Niedermann) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:54:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/terminus-font/F-10 .cvsignore, 1.3, 1.4 sources, 1.3, 1.4 terminus-font-console.README.fedora, 1.2, 1.3 terminus-font.spec, 1.7, 1.8 Message-ID: <20081207125435.BB8E170100@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: ndim Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/F-10 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv29699 Modified Files: .cvsignore sources terminus-font-console.README.fedora terminus-font.spec Log Message: * Sun Sep 21 2008 Hans Ulrich Niedermann - 4.28-1 - Update to upstream's 4.28 release. - Add -dv1, -ge1, -ij1 patches for more general appeal in cyrillic world. - Add notes for framebuffer console to terminus-font-console.README.fedora. Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/F-10/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- .cvsignore 17 May 2008 22:27:17 -0000 1.3 +++ .cvsignore 7 Dec 2008 12:54:05 -0000 1.4 @@ -1 +1,4 @@ -terminus-font-4.26.tar.gz +terminus-font-4.28.tar.gz +terminus-font-4.28-dv1.diff.gz +terminus-font-4.28-ge1.diff.gz +terminus-font-4.28-ij1.diff.gz Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/F-10/sources,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- sources 17 May 2008 22:27:17 -0000 1.3 +++ sources 7 Dec 2008 12:54:05 -0000 1.4 @@ -1 +1,4 @@ -a0352316f3b983ddc670b25ab166094e terminus-font-4.26.tar.gz +15bf2f17b625312383fd9dae0925a17e terminus-font-4.28.tar.gz +74e2db5288065403a58c28672590c1cd terminus-font-4.28-dv1.diff.gz +7815830460294d79d8508199499e1408 terminus-font-4.28-ge1.diff.gz +54ea26d7671d57d611ee4229f000fc10 terminus-font-4.28-ij1.diff.gz Index: terminus-font-console.README.fedora =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/F-10/terminus-font-console.README.fedora,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- terminus-font-console.README.fedora 17 May 2008 23:01:20 -0000 1.2 +++ terminus-font-console.README.fedora 7 Dec 2008 12:54:05 -0000 1.3 @@ -10,12 +10,14 @@ /lib/kbd/consolefonts/README.terminus - * You can manually change the font for the Linux VGA textmode console - by running something like + * You can manually change the font for the Linux VGA textmode or + framebuffer console by running something like /bin/setfont /lib/kbd/consolefonts/ter-u16b.psf.gz - TBD: How to do that on a Linux framebuffer console? + Note that using a font of a different font size will change the + $COLUMNS and $LINES of the terminal together with the changed + font size. * To make the above setting permanent, adapt the file Index: terminus-font.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/F-10/terminus-font.spec,v retrieving revision 1.7 retrieving revision 1.8 diff -u -r1.7 -r1.8 --- terminus-font.spec 17 May 2008 23:01:20 -0000 1.7 +++ terminus-font.spec 7 Dec 2008 12:54:05 -0000 1.8 @@ -1,16 +1,19 @@ Name: terminus-font -Version: 4.26 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Version: 4.28 +Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Clean fixed width font BuildArch: noarch Group: User Interface/X License: GPLv2+ -URL: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/jimmy-en.html +URL: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/ Source0: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Source10: terminus-font-console.README.fedora Source20: terminus-font-x11.README.fedora Source21: terminus-font-x11.Xresources.example +Patch11: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/%{name}-%{version}-dv1.diff.gz +Patch12: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/%{name}-%{version}-ge1.diff.gz +Patch13: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/%{name}-%{version}-ij1.diff.gz BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) BuildRequires: /usr/bin/bdftopcf @@ -34,12 +37,10 @@ The Terminus Font is designed for long (8 and more hours per day) work with computers. -Version 4.26 contains 752 characters, covering code pages -ISO8859-1/2/5/7/9/13/15/16, IBM-437/852/855/866, KOI8-R/U/E/F, -Windows-1250/1251/1252/1253/1254/1257, Paratype-PT154/PT254, -Bulgarian-MIK, Macintosh-Ukrainian, Esperanto and many others -(a total of about 115 language sets). Also included are the -IBM VGA, vt100 and xterm pseudographic characters. +Version 4.28 contains 825 characters, covers about 120 language +sets and supports ISO8859-1/2/5/7/9/13/15/16, Paratype-PT154/PT254, +KOI8-R/U/E/F, Esperanto, many IBM, Windows and Macintosh code pages, +as well as the IBM VGA, vt100 and xterm pseudographic characters. The sizes present are 6x12, 8x14, 8x16, 10x20, 12x24, 14x28 and 16x32. The styles are normal and bold (except for 6x12), @@ -105,6 +106,9 @@ %prep %setup -q +%patch11 -p0 -b .dv1 +%patch12 -p0 -b .ge1 +%patch13 -p0 -b .ij1 %build @@ -551,6 +555,11 @@ %changelog +* Sun Sep 21 2008 Hans Ulrich Niedermann - 4.28-1 +- Update to upstream's 4.28 release. +- Add -dv1, -ge1, -ij1 patches for more general appeal in cyrillic world. +- Add notes for framebuffer console to terminus-font-console.README.fedora. + * Sun May 18 2008 Hans Ulrich Niedermann - 4.26-2 - Update README.fedora for console fonts with answers. - Make sure scriptlets never fail. From ndim at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 7 12:54:38 2008 From: ndim at fedoraproject.org (Hans Ulrich Niedermann) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:54:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/terminus-font/F-9 .cvsignore, 1.3, 1.4 sources, 1.3, 1.4 terminus-font-console.README.fedora, 1.1, 1.2 terminus-font.spec, 1.6, 1.7 Message-ID: <20081207125438.48DD570100@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: ndim Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/F-9 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv29721 Modified Files: .cvsignore sources terminus-font-console.README.fedora terminus-font.spec Log Message: * Sun Sep 21 2008 Hans Ulrich Niedermann - 4.28-1 - Update to upstream's 4.28 release. - Add -dv1, -ge1, -ij1 patches for more general appeal in cyrillic world. - Add notes for framebuffer console to terminus-font-console.README.fedora. Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/F-9/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- .cvsignore 1 May 2008 15:37:26 -0000 1.3 +++ .cvsignore 7 Dec 2008 12:54:07 -0000 1.4 @@ -1 +1,4 @@ -terminus-font-4.26.tar.gz +terminus-font-4.28.tar.gz +terminus-font-4.28-dv1.diff.gz +terminus-font-4.28-ge1.diff.gz +terminus-font-4.28-ij1.diff.gz Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/F-9/sources,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- sources 1 May 2008 15:37:26 -0000 1.3 +++ sources 7 Dec 2008 12:54:07 -0000 1.4 @@ -1 +1,4 @@ -a0352316f3b983ddc670b25ab166094e terminus-font-4.26.tar.gz +15bf2f17b625312383fd9dae0925a17e terminus-font-4.28.tar.gz +74e2db5288065403a58c28672590c1cd terminus-font-4.28-dv1.diff.gz +7815830460294d79d8508199499e1408 terminus-font-4.28-ge1.diff.gz +54ea26d7671d57d611ee4229f000fc10 terminus-font-4.28-ij1.diff.gz Index: terminus-font-console.README.fedora =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/F-9/terminus-font-console.README.fedora,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- terminus-font-console.README.fedora 5 Sep 2006 08:56:26 -0000 1.1 +++ terminus-font-console.README.fedora 7 Dec 2008 12:54:07 -0000 1.2 @@ -5,11 +5,23 @@ The console package just dumps the font files in the directory where the other console fonts are and does not do any setting up (for now). -You can manually change the font for the Linux VGA textmode console -by running something like + * The difference between all those ter-????.psf.gz files is + explained in the file - /bin/setfont /lib/kbd/consolefonts/ter-u16b.psf.gz + /lib/kbd/consolefonts/README.terminus + + * You can manually change the font for the Linux VGA textmode or + framebuffer console by running something like + + /bin/setfont /lib/kbd/consolefonts/ter-u16b.psf.gz + + Note that using a font of a different font size will change the + $COLUMNS and $LINES of the terminal together with the changed + font size. + + * To make the above setting permanent, adapt the file + + /etc/sysconfig/i18n + + to set SYSFONT="ter-u16b". -TBD: How to do that on a Linux framebuffer console? -TBD: How to make those settings permanent? -TBD: What is the difference between all those ter-????.psf.gz files? Index: terminus-font.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/terminus-font/F-9/terminus-font.spec,v retrieving revision 1.6 retrieving revision 1.7 diff -u -r1.6 -r1.7 --- terminus-font.spec 1 May 2008 15:37:26 -0000 1.6 +++ terminus-font.spec 7 Dec 2008 12:54:07 -0000 1.7 @@ -1,16 +1,19 @@ Name: terminus-font -Version: 4.26 +Version: 4.28 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Clean fixed width font BuildArch: noarch Group: User Interface/X License: GPLv2+ -URL: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/jimmy-en.html +URL: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/ Source0: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Source10: terminus-font-console.README.fedora Source20: terminus-font-x11.README.fedora Source21: terminus-font-x11.Xresources.example +Patch11: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/%{name}-%{version}-dv1.diff.gz +Patch12: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/%{name}-%{version}-ge1.diff.gz +Patch13: http://www.is-vn.bg/hamster/%{name}-%{version}-ij1.diff.gz BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) BuildRequires: /usr/bin/bdftopcf @@ -34,12 +37,10 @@ The Terminus Font is designed for long (8 and more hours per day) work with computers. -Version 4.26 contains 752 characters, covering code pages -ISO8859-1/2/5/7/9/13/15/16, IBM-437/852/855/866, KOI8-R/U/E/F, -Windows-1250/1251/1252/1253/1254/1257, Paratype-PT154/PT254, -Bulgarian-MIK, Macintosh-Ukrainian, Esperanto and many others -(a total of about 115 language sets). Also included are the -IBM VGA, vt100 and xterm pseudographic characters. +Version 4.28 contains 825 characters, covers about 120 language +sets and supports ISO8859-1/2/5/7/9/13/15/16, Paratype-PT154/PT254, +KOI8-R/U/E/F, Esperanto, many IBM, Windows and Macintosh code pages, +as well as the IBM VGA, vt100 and xterm pseudographic characters. The sizes present are 6x12, 8x14, 8x16, 10x20, 12x24, 14x28 and 16x32. The styles are normal and bold (except for 6x12), @@ -55,19 +56,16 @@ %package x11 -Group: User Interface/X -Summary: Clean fixed width font (X11 version) -Requires: fontconfig +Group: User Interface/X +Summary: Clean fixed width font (X11 version) # First filesystem package to contain %{catalogue}/ dir. -# However, filesystem >= 2.4.11-1 is not available on F-7 (yet?), while -# the libXfont requirements are satisfied there. So we allow F-7 by ignoring -# the filesystem package for now. -# Requires: filesystem >= 2.4.11-1 +Requires: filesystem >= 2.4.11-1 # First libXfont to support the %{catalogue} mechanism. -Requires: libXfont >= 1.2.9-1 -Requires(post): /usr/bin/mkfontdir -Requires(post): /usr/bin/fc-cache -Requires(postun): /usr/bin/fc-cache +Conflicts: libXfont < 1.2.9-1 +# We might use special fontconfig features some time. +# Conflicts: fontconfig < 0.0.0 +# We might not work with older mkfontdir +# Conflicts: xorg-x11-font-utils < 7.2-1 %description console @@ -108,6 +106,9 @@ %prep %setup -q +%patch11 -p0 -b .dv1 +%patch12 -p0 -b .ge1 +%patch13 -p0 -b .ij1 %build @@ -335,13 +336,19 @@ %post x11 # Run this both after initial installation and package update. -/usr/bin/fc-cache %{global_font_dir} -/usr/bin/mkfontdir %{local_x11_font_dir} +if [ -x /usr/bin/fc-cache ]; then + /usr/bin/fc-cache -f %{global_font_dir} ||: +fi +if [ -x /usr/bin/mkfontdir ]; then + /usr/bin/mkfontdir %{local_x11_font_dir} ||: +fi %postun x11 if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then # Uninstall - /usr/bin/fc-cache %{global_font_dir} + if [ -x /usr/bin/fc-cache ]; then + /usr/bin/fc-cache -f %{global_font_dir} ||: + fi fi @@ -548,6 +555,17 @@ %changelog +* Sun Sep 21 2008 Hans Ulrich Niedermann - 4.28-1 +- Update to upstream's 4.28 release. +- Add -dv1, -ge1, -ij1 patches for more general appeal in cyrillic world. +- Add notes for framebuffer console to terminus-font-console.README.fedora. + +* Sun May 18 2008 Hans Ulrich Niedermann - 4.26-2 +- Update README.fedora for console fonts with answers. +- Make sure scriptlets never fail. +- Use -f option with fc-cache. +- Remove dependency on fontconfig. + * Thu May 01 2008 Hans Ulrich Niedermann - 4.26-1 - Upstream release 4.26: - full set of greek characters From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 7 13:04:39 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:04:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474045] there is a newer upstream version available (4.28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812071304.mB7D4dPn011399@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474045 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-07 08:04:39 EDT --- terminus-font-4.28-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/terminus-font-4.28-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 7 13:04:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:04:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474045] there is a newer upstream version available (4.28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812071304.mB7D4gqS011424@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474045 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-07 08:04:41 EDT --- terminus-font-4.28-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/terminus-font-4.28-1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 7 13:04:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:04:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474045] there is a newer upstream version available (4.28) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812071304.mB7D4Z2C009174@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474045 --- Comment #5 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann 2008-12-07 08:04:34 EDT --- Now that I can actually see it, this makes a lot of sense for a general use font. Thanks a lot for this insightful explanation. New packages are being built right now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 7 13:11:55 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:11:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474045] new upstream version 4.28; use cyrillic non-script characters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812071311.mB7DBtD4013259@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474045 Hans Ulrich Niedermann changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|there is a newer upstream |new upstream version 4.28; |version available (4.28) |use cyrillic non-script | |characters -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 7 17:03:27 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:03:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 391191] wrong verify options in rpm package for fonts.dir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812071703.mB7H3Rvw021478@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=391191 Christian Krause changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|8 |10 --- Comment #2 from Christian Krause 2008-12-07 12:03:25 EDT --- I've seen this problem in F10, too. I've attached a patch to the spec file which should solve the problem in a similar way the other fonts packages did: e.g. %verify(not md5 size mtime) %{bmpfontdir}/fonts.alias -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 7 17:05:09 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:05:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 391191] wrong verify options in rpm package for fonts.dir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812071705.mB7H59m0019214@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=391191 --- Comment #3 from Christian Krause 2008-12-07 12:05:08 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326047) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326047) patch which fixes the verify options for the fonts.dir/cache files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Sun Dec 7 19:29:37 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:29:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18928] New: RFE: add a gfx preview to font packages Message-ID: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18928 Summary: RFE: add a gfx preview to font packages Product: PackageKit Version: unspecified Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: General AssignedTo: richard at hughsie.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net CC: fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com The best way for a user to select a font is to show it to him. For this reason font sites commonly provide bitmap preview images or so-called specimen files (typically in PDF form) that showcase the font capabilities. http://gonzo.uni-weimar.de/~gerner/fonts/YanoneKaffeesatz.pdf http://www.ascendercorp.com/pdf/Droid_fonts.pdf Packagekit should do the same. The image should be a pangram http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pangrams in the main unicode blocks the font supports The specimen may include unicode coverage info, glyph table, etc For more info ask on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Sun Dec 7 19:53:49 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 11:53:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18928] RFE: add a gfx preview to font packages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081207195349.8F72E13005A@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18928 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-07 11:53:48 PST --- Thinking about it some more a complete glyph table is probably too much, and a bitmap preview won't work too well depending on the target system dpi, to the best thing is probably a pdf with the embedded glyphs necessary for a few pangrams, and a list of unicode blocks/scripts with complete coverage Eugeniy Meshcheryakov has a written a little tool to generate complete PDF glyphs tables with embedded fonts, it can probably serve as inspiration to do the same for pangrams http://sourceforge.net/projects/fntsample -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From kkofler at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 7 23:57:39 2008 From: kkofler at fedoraproject.org (Kevin Kofler) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 23:57:39 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/freetype/F-9 freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch, NONE, 1.1 freetype.spec, 1.62, 1.63 Message-ID: <20081207235739.92C7C700FB@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: kkofler Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/freetype/F-9 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv12224/F-9 Modified Files: freetype.spec Added Files: freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch Log Message: * Sun Dec 07 2008 Kevin Kofler 2.3.5-7 - Add freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch by Behdad Esfahbod (#368561) freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch: --- NEW FILE freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch --- Index: src/autofit/aflatin.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/freetype/freetype2/src/autofit/aflatin.c,v retrieving revision 1.65 diff -u -p -d -r1.65 aflatin.c --- src/autofit/aflatin.c 7 Jul 2007 07:30:39 -0000 1.65 +++ src/autofit/aflatin.c 5 Dec 2008 21:15:46 -0000 @@ -2144,6 +2144,7 @@ { 0x20A0, 0x20CF }, /* Currency Symbols */ { 0x2150, 0x218F }, /* Number Forms */ { 0x2460, 0x24FF }, /* Enclosed Alphanumerics */ + { 0xFB00, 0xFB06 }, /* Latin Ligatures */ { 0 , 0 } }; Index: freetype.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/freetype/F-9/freetype.spec,v retrieving revision 1.62 retrieving revision 1.63 diff -u -r1.62 -r1.63 --- freetype.spec 17 Jun 2008 04:08:56 -0000 1.62 +++ freetype.spec 7 Dec 2008 23:57:04 -0000 1.63 @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Summary: A free and portable font rendering engine Name: freetype Version: 2.3.5 -Release: 6%{?dist} +Release: 7%{?dist} License: BSD/GPL dual license Group: System Environment/Libraries URL: http://www.freetype.org @@ -32,8 +32,8 @@ Patch89: freetype-2.2.1-memcpy-fix.patch # Upstream patches - Patch90: freetype-2.3.5-CVEs.patch +Patch101: freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) @@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ %patch89 -p1 -b .memcpy %patch90 -p1 -b .CVEs +%patch101 -p0 -b .autohinter-ligature %build @@ -212,6 +213,9 @@ %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ %changelog +* Sun Dec 07 2008 Kevin Kofler 2.3.5-7 +- Add freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch by Behdad Esfahbod (#368561) + * Tue Jun 17 2008 Behdad Esfahbod 2.3.5-6 - Add freetype-2.3.5-CVEs.patch - Resolves: #451213 From kkofler at fedoraproject.org Mon Dec 8 00:11:32 2008 From: kkofler at fedoraproject.org (Kevin Kofler) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 00:11:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/freetype/F-8 freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch, NONE, 1.1 freetype.spec, 1.60, 1.61 Message-ID: <20081208001132.79DFF700FD@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: kkofler Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/freetype/F-8 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv17057/F-8 Modified Files: freetype.spec Added Files: freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch Log Message: * Mon Dec 08 2008 Kevin Kofler 2.3.5-5 - Add freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch by Behdad Esfahbod (#368561) freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch: --- NEW FILE freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch --- Index: src/autofit/aflatin.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/freetype/freetype2/src/autofit/aflatin.c,v retrieving revision 1.65 diff -u -p -d -r1.65 aflatin.c --- src/autofit/aflatin.c 7 Jul 2007 07:30:39 -0000 1.65 +++ src/autofit/aflatin.c 5 Dec 2008 21:15:46 -0000 @@ -2144,6 +2144,7 @@ { 0x20A0, 0x20CF }, /* Currency Symbols */ { 0x2150, 0x218F }, /* Number Forms */ { 0x2460, 0x24FF }, /* Enclosed Alphanumerics */ + { 0xFB00, 0xFB06 }, /* Latin Ligatures */ { 0 , 0 } }; Index: freetype.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/freetype/F-8/freetype.spec,v retrieving revision 1.60 retrieving revision 1.61 diff -u -r1.60 -r1.61 --- freetype.spec 17 Jun 2008 04:07:05 -0000 1.60 +++ freetype.spec 8 Dec 2008 00:11:01 -0000 1.61 @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ Summary: A free and portable font rendering engine Name: freetype Version: 2.3.5 -Release: 4%{?dist} +Release: 5%{?dist} License: BSD/GPL dual license Group: System Environment/Libraries URL: http://www.freetype.org @@ -32,8 +32,8 @@ Patch89: freetype-2.2.1-memcpy-fix.patch # Upstream patches - Patch90: freetype-2.3.5-CVEs.patch +Patch101: freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) @@ -96,6 +96,7 @@ %patch89 -p1 -b .memcpy %patch90 -p1 -b .CVEs +%patch101 -p0 -b .autohinter-ligature %build @@ -212,6 +213,9 @@ %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ %changelog +* Mon Dec 08 2008 Kevin Kofler 2.3.5-5 +- Add freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch by Behdad Esfahbod (#368561) + * Tue Jun 17 2008 Behdad Esfahbod 2.3.5-4 - Add freetype-2.3.5-CVEs.patch - Resolves: #451212 From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 00:33:44 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 19:33:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812080033.mB80XiNL001780@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #55 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-07 19:33:43 EDT --- freetype-2.3.5-7.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freetype-2.3.5-7.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 00:34:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 19:34:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812080034.mB80YbOK001884@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #56 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-07 19:34:36 EDT --- freetype-2.3.5-5.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freetype-2.3.5-5.fc8 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 02:35:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 21:35:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474522] Incorrect cent sign glyph (U+00A2) in Sans and Mono style in Liberation fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812080235.mB82Z6Gk020910@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474522 san changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|medium |high -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 04:58:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 23:58:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474522] Incorrect cent sign glyph (U+00A2) in Sans and Mono style in Liberation fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812080458.mB84wkR6012328@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474522 Caius CHANCE changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |i18n Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 05:38:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 00:38:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474522] Incorrect cent sign glyph (U+00A2) in Sans and Mono style in Liberation fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812080538.mB85cgZq018843@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474522 --- Comment #1 from Caius CHANCE 2008-12-08 00:38:41 EDT --- Checked. They are all aesthetic preference from the original author. Hence, they should not be bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 05:38:55 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 00:38:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474522] Incorrect cent sign glyph (U+00A2) in Sans and Mono style in Liberation fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812080538.mB85ctp4016261@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474522 Caius CHANCE changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(watchingman at gmail | |.com) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 06:25:51 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 01:25:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473552] Fix dejavu-* dependencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812080625.mB86Pp1R026363@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473552 --- Comment #1 from Balint Cristian 2008-12-08 01:25:50 EDT --- For now scons is broken in -devel, however CVS was commited with a bug fix. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 06:31:19 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 01:31:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474522] Incorrect cent sign glyph (U+00A2) in Sans and Mono style in Liberation fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812080631.mB86VJwP024723@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474522 --- Comment #2 from Caius CHANCE 2008-12-08 01:31:18 EDT --- I tried to work on your demand, could you kindly have a look sample: http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packages/liberation-fonts/LiberationMono-BoldItalic.sfd http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packages/liberation-fonts/LiberationMono-BoldItalic.ttf Let me know if you are happy with that. So I could proceed changes on all included fonts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 10:47:31 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 05:47:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 468598] How to add fonts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812081047.mB8AlVQ0004796@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468598 Bug Zapper changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |10 Tom?? B?atek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |epsilon at loiv.torun.pl --- Comment #4 from Bug Zapper 2008-11-25 23:15:50 EDT --- This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle. Changing version to '10'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping --- Comment #5 from Tom?? B?atek 2008-12-08 05:47:30 EDT --- *** Bug 475048 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 10:56:49 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 05:56:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 468598] How to add fonts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812081056.mB8Aunx1009526@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468598 --- Comment #6 from Andrzej Nowak 2008-12-08 05:56:49 EDT --- In earlier versions of Fedora (prior to 10), nautilus was able to manage fonts, and - more importantly - display icons with the font face and open previews. This is no longer the case, there are no previews shown for directories containing fonts and there is no way to view a font sheet from natuilus without an external application designed for that purpose. A very good piece of functionality was removed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 11:37:08 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 06:37:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 468598] How to add fonts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812081137.mB8Bb82m018117@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468598 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-08 06:37:08 EDT --- The preview bit is fixed in rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 13:00:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:00:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474045] new upstream version 4.28; use cyrillic non-script characters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812081300.mB8D0Ow1032198@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474045 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-08 08:00:23 EDT --- terminus-font-4.28-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update terminus-font'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-10928 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 13:04:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 08:04:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474045] new upstream version 4.28; use cyrillic non-script characters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812081304.mB8D4Ehm001153@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474045 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-08 08:04:13 EDT --- terminus-font-4.28-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update terminus-font'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2008-10945 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 16:28:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:28:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475233] New: pango update i386 conflicts Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: pango update i386 conflicts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475233 Summary: pango update i386 conflicts Product: Fedora Version: 10 Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: pango AssignedTo: besfahbo at redhat.com ReportedBy: jes at trained-monkey.org QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: besfahbo at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora Description of problem: A system initially installed with Fedora 7 and then upgraded, most recently to F10, I hit the following error with today's updates: Test Transaction Errors: file /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/pango/PangoMarkupFormat.html conflicts between attempted installs of pango-devel-1.22.3-1.fc10.x86_64 and pango-devel-1.22.3-1.fc10.i386 file /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/pango/pango-querymodules.html conflicts between attempted installs of pango-devel-1.22.3-1.fc10.x86_64 and pango-devel-1.22.3-1.fc10.i386 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Manually removing pango-devel.i386 makes the problem go away. dwmw2 wanted me to report this, so you can blame him for the bug :-) How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 17:04:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:04:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812081704.mB8H4rON026818@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #58 from Kriston Rehberg 2008-12-08 12:04:51 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326146) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326146) Diff for ligatures fix -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 17:03:59 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:03:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812081703.mB8H3xei026663@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #57 from Kriston Rehberg 2008-12-08 12:03:58 EDT --- Be advised that the HEAD version in FreeType's CVS extended the fix to some other ranges. I have confirmed the bug is fixed in the latest FreeType CVS for the offending Latin ligatures in the DejaVu font family. Thank you for your effort! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 17:23:00 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:23:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in firefox look blurry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812081723.mB8HN0sV002773@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 Matej Cepl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 17:23:11 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:23:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in firefox look blurry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812081723.mB8HNB6G030980@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 Matej Cepl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 17:22:49 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:22:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in firefox look blurry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812081722.mB8HMnix030912@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 Matej Cepl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|gecko-bugs-nobody at fedorapro |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh |ject.org |at.com, mcepl at redhat.com, | |orion at cora.nwra.com Component|firefox |freefont AssignedTo|gecko-bugs-nobody at fedorapro |orion at cora.nwra.com |ject.org | --- Comment #12 from Matej Cepl 2008-12-08 12:22:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > I acknowledge that this is not necessarily a problem unique to Firefox but I > still believe this is some kind of a bug. I will be happy to re-file it under a > more general component. OK, as you wish. Mat?j -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 17:29:48 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:29:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in firefox look blurry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812081729.mB8HTm8t032267@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 --- Comment #13 from Orion Poplawski 2008-12-08 12:29:47 EDT --- Why is this a freefont problem? Lack of a better font component to file against? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 17:52:25 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:52:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in firefox look blurry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812081752.mB8HqPDP004808@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net --- Comment #14 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-08 12:52:24 EDT --- Probably better filed upstream @mozilla IIRC they had some problem passing rendering options to cairo. And anyway till Firefox learns to read the desktop font options from XSettings, it'll continue to behave differently from other apps. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 19:41:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:41:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812081941.mB8Jf6np004954@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #59 from Kevin Kofler 2008-12-08 14:41:05 EDT --- Your patch is reversed and it also contains whitespace changes... These are the ranges which are added in FreeType's CVS and not in Fedora's CVS: { 0x2C60 , 0x2C7F }, /* Latin Extended-C */ { 0x2DE0 , 0x2DFF }, /* Cyrillic Extended-A */ { 0xA640U , 0xA69FU }, /* Cyrillic Extended-B */ { 0xA720U , 0xA7FFU }, /* Latin Extended-D */ { 0x1D400UL, 0x1D7FFUL }, /* Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols */ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 20:33:17 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 15:33:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472418] Review Request: xmbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812082033.mB8KXHbN019318@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472418 Lucian Langa changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cooly at gnome.eu.org --- Comment #1 from Lucian Langa 2008-12-08 15:33:16 EDT --- This package needs xorg-x11-fonts-misc as requirement, otherwise it won't even start: XmuttFontGrid: can't load the "6x10" font. xmbdfed.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated xmbdfed.desktop: warning: value "Application;Graphics;" for key "Categories" in group "Desktop Entry" contains a deprecated value "Application" In the %files section, please to use: %defattr(-, root, root, -) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 20:38:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 15:38:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812082038.mB8KchBs015480@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 Kriston Rehberg changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #326146|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #60 from Kriston Rehberg 2008-12-08 15:38:42 EDT --- (From update of attachment 326146) Obsoleted -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 20:42:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 15:42:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812082042.mB8KgEEi021458@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #61 from Kriston Rehberg 2008-12-08 15:42:13 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326180) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326180) Diff between aflatin.c 1.65 to 1.66 from FreeType CVS Corrected unified diff between aflatin.c 1.65 to 1.66 from FreeType CVS. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 21:13:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:13:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472418] Review Request: xmbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812082113.mB8LDK77023363@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472418 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-08 16:13:19 EDT --- BTW this one may be a better option for packaging (didn't actually try any of them) http://www.math.nmsu.edu/~mleisher/Software/gbdfed/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 21:39:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:39:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474734] Blurriness of Latin letter R (U+0052) in Liberation Regular In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812082139.mB8LdrdX003464@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474734 --- Comment #3 from David Hlacik 2008-12-08 16:39:51 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326199) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326199) "R" letter Same when using Subpixel smoothing and Bytecode interpreter -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 8 23:03:52 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:03:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472418] Review Request: xmbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812082303.mB8N3qxa018380@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472418 --- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-12-08 18:03:51 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > This package needs xorg-x11-fonts-misc as requirement, otherwise it won't even > start: > XmuttFontGrid: can't load the "6x10" font. > > > xmbdfed.desktop: warning: key "Encoding" in group "Desktop Entry" is deprecated > xmbdfed.desktop: warning: value "Application;Graphics;" for key "Categories" in > group "Desktop Entry" contains a deprecated value "Application" > > > In the %files section, please to use: > %defattr(-, root, root, -) Thanks! All of these are fixed in -2: New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/xmbdfed-4.7-2.fc11.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/xmbdfed.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Mon Dec 8 23:14:52 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 15:14:52 -0800 Subject: [Bug 70132] Support @font-face In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812082314.mB8NEq5E021466@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70132 Bug 70132 depends on bug 458878, which changed state. Bug 458878 Summary: {inc}@font-face: 's specified in 'ex' unit are incorrect, using metrics from fallback font https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458878 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 01:05:17 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 20:05:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473481] Blurriness of Greek letter m (U+03BC) in Liberation Sans Regular In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812090105.mB915HgR017344@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473481 Caius CHANCE changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #7 from Caius CHANCE 2008-12-08 20:05:17 EDT --- Close as resolved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 01:42:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 20:42:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475389] New: Loss of hinting instructions on changes/saving. Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Loss of hinting instructions on changes/saving. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475389 Summary: Loss of hinting instructions on changes/saving. Product: Fedora Version: 10 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Keywords: i18n Severity: medium Priority: low Component: fontforge AssignedTo: kevin at tummy.com ReportedBy: cchance at redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: roozbeh at gmail.com, kevin at tummy.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora Description of problem: When I change the glyph point on a certain glyph, fontforge pops up a window of message like "all the glyphs which refer to this glyph will be changed". After that, there are some characters on the main window (the one with grid of glphs) have highlighted in blue color. Such highlights means empty instructions on such glyphs. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): fontforge-20080828-1.fc10.i386 How reproducible: Often. Steps to Reproduce: - prepare f10 - login to desktop env - ensure latest fontforge is installed - start fontforge w/ http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packages/liberation-fonts/LiberationMono-BoldItalic.sfd loaded - pick a glyph and change some glyph points on it - check results Actual results: Changes only are applied to the glyph edited. Expected results: Some blue highlights on main window (with grid of all glpyhs), which means empty hinting instructions on such glyphs. Additional info: Copied this bug to upstream mailing list. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 02:00:41 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 21:00:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474734] Blurriness of Latin letter R (U+0052) in Liberation Regular In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812090200.mB920fa4019568@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474734 Caius CHANCE changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Caius CHANCE 2008-12-08 21:00:40 EDT --- I have checked and the hinting tables (hinting instructions, fpgm, prep, maxp, cvt) are all existing in there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 06:21:36 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:21:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474522] Incorrect cent sign glyph (U+00A2) in Sans and Mono style in Liberation fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812090621.mB96LaI3014117@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474522 --- Comment #3 from Caius CHANCE 2008-12-09 01:21:35 EDT --- Updated: https://fedorahosted.org/releases/l/i/liberation-fonts/liberation-fonts-1.04.93.devel.tar.gz https://fedorahosted.org/releases/l/i/liberation-fonts/liberation-fonts-1.04.93.devel.zip -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From cchance at fedoraproject.org Tue Dec 9 06:31:55 2008 From: cchance at fedoraproject.org (Caius Chance) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 06:31:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/liberation-fonts/devel liberation-fonts.spec, 1.24, 1.25 sources, 1.11, 1.12 Message-ID: <20081209063155.BF10B70106@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: cchance Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/liberation-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv10437 Modified Files: liberation-fonts.spec sources Log Message: * Tue Dec 09 2008 Caius Chance - 1.04.93-2.fc11 - Resolves: rhbz#474522 (Cent sign is not coressed in Sans & Mono.) Index: liberation-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/liberation-fonts/devel/liberation-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.24 retrieving revision 1.25 diff -u -r1.24 -r1.25 --- liberation-fonts.spec 3 Dec 2008 00:59:51 -0000 1.24 +++ liberation-fonts.spec 9 Dec 2008 06:31:21 -0000 1.25 @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Summary: Fonts to replace commonly used Microsoft Windows Fonts Name: liberation-fonts Version: 1.04.93 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} # The license of the Liberation Fonts is a EULA that contains # GPLv2 and two exceptions: # The first exception is the standard FSF font exception. @@ -69,6 +69,9 @@ %{catalogue}/%{name} %changelog +* Tue Dec 09 2008 Caius Chance - 1.04.93-2.fc11 +- Resolves: rhbz#474522 (Cent sign is not coressed in Sans & Mono.) + * Wed Dec 03 2008 Caius Chance - 1.04.93-1.fc11 - Resolves: rhbz#473481 (Blurriness of Greek letter m (U+03BC) in Liberation Sans Regular.) Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/liberation-fonts/devel/sources,v retrieving revision 1.11 retrieving revision 1.12 diff -u -r1.11 -r1.12 --- sources 3 Dec 2008 00:59:51 -0000 1.11 +++ sources 9 Dec 2008 06:31:21 -0000 1.12 @@ -1 +1 @@ -65a67157a13d8b4dd5201c20ce47a915 liberation-fonts-1.04.93.devel.tar.gz +01e9083d6e55f83ae9344521f8a9739a liberation-fonts-1.04.93.devel.tar.gz From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 06:40:29 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:40:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474522] Incorrect cent sign glyph (U+00A2) in Sans and Mono style in Liberation fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812090640.mB96eT86010936@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474522 Caius CHANCE changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Flag|needinfo?(watchingman at gmail | |.com) | --- Comment #4 from Caius CHANCE 2008-12-09 01:40:27 EDT --- Built to rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=988575 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 06:59:36 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 01:59:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473842] Add Greek Polytonic support to Liberation fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812090659.mB96xaRI014449@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473842 Caius CHANCE changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(simos.bugzilla at gm | |ail.com) --- Comment #3 from Caius CHANCE 2008-12-09 01:59:35 EDT --- Taken away Coptic letters (U03E2..U03EF), it has 30 chars remains. 30 chars * 3 types * 4 styles = 360 glyphs. I don't think I could finish it alone timely. Could I know how many chars are needed to be filled, before Greek people could use this font? I can't promise how much I could do as I'm just 1 person. Let's try to prioritize it together. I have read the Greek Extended block. Also, how important for Greek Extended block to Greek people? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 07:05:21 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 02:05:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474734] Blurriness of Latin letter R (U+0052) in Liberation Regular In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812090705.mB975LYX021370@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474734 Caius CHANCE changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |i18n -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 07:59:41 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 02:59:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in firefox look blurry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812090759.mB97xfPR030530@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 Martin Stransky changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(epsilon at loiv.toru | |n.pl) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 07:58:39 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 02:58:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in firefox look blurry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812090758.mB97wdn9030411@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 Martin Stransky changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |stransky at redhat.com --- Comment #15 from Martin Stransky 2008-12-09 02:58:38 EDT --- Please try to reproduce that bug with official mozilla binary (the latest 3.1 beta 2 is the best candidate) and if the bug is there too we can consider to file it upstream. Firefox really suffers from some font misconfiguration. Anyway, can you check other web browser for the bug? Like seamonkey from F10, it can help us to direct investigation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 07:59:25 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 02:59:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in firefox look blurry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812090759.mB97xPNC024510@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 --- Comment #16 from Martin Stransky 2008-12-09 02:59:24 EDT --- Get your beta here - http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 08:25:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 03:25:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474522] Incorrect cent sign glyph (U+00A2) in Sans and Mono style in Liberation fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812090825.mB98P679003151@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474522 --- Comment #5 from san 2008-12-09 03:25:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > I tried to work on your demand, could you kindly have a look sample: > > http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packages/liberation-fonts/LiberationMono-BoldItalic.sfd > > http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packages/liberation-fonts/LiberationMono-BoldItalic.ttf > > Let me know if you are happy with that. So I could proceed changes on all > included fonts. I check with the fonts from https://fedorahosted.org/releases/l/i/liberation-fonts/liberation-fonts-1.04.93.devel.zip, all fixed. Thanks. Here I put the reason to report the bug? 1) to follow the unicode reference: http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/00a2/index.htm 2) cent sign marked as acrossed C is more clear and easy to designate in small size. Liberation fonts will be the first choice for LGC. Thank you ! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Tue Dec 9 13:10:30 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 05:10:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18725] RFE: allow merging of legacy font family names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081209131030.2BC38130058@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18725 Julian Sikorski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |belegdol at gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Julian Sikorski 2008-12-09 05:10:29 PST --- Currently arial narrow is being partially merged, which from users' point of view is even worse since it is not possible to select arial narrow in any way, neither as a separate font or as a style of arial. Please fix this. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 14:05:27 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:05:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473842] Add Greek Polytonic support to Liberation fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812091405.mB9E5RDu006108@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473842 Simos Xenitellis changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(simos.bugzilla at gm | |ail.com) | --- Comment #4 from Simos Xenitellis 2008-12-09 09:05:26 EDT --- The current set of glyphs in Liberation should be sufficient to Greek users. Greek Polytonic and other Ancient characters should be useful to a. Scholars that study Classics and Ancient Greek (mostly Universities around the world) b. People that study Biblical Greek. For example, see http://www.nerdlets.org/category/greek/ c. Modern Greek replaced Greek Polytonic in 1981. There are people who continue to use Polytonic, as shown at http://www.polytoniko.org/ For a sample of users, see http://simos.info/blog/archives/639 As a priority, I would consider Greek Polytonic to be 'Low priority' (I can only change Severity in this Bugzilla, not Priority). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Tue Dec 9 15:04:41 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 07:04:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18725] RFE: allow merging of legacy font family names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081209150441.AF76B13005D@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18725 --- Comment #2 from Julian Sikorski 2008-12-09 07:04:41 PST --- Please note that I'm not asking to return to the old behaviour, I'm asking for a proper fix which will benefit everyone. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.gnome.org Tue Dec 9 15:28:55 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.gnome.org (pango (bugzilla.gnome.org)) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:28:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Bug 563862] Arial font styles are incorrect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081209152855.A9DC523F509@label.gnome.org> If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=563862 pango | general | Ver: 1.22.x ------- Comment #1 from Julian Sikorski 2008-12-09 15:28 UTC ------- Created an attachment (id=124280) --> (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=124280&action=view) gtk font selector under C locale -- See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone if you are having problems with the system. You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=563862. From bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.gnome.org Tue Dec 9 15:28:08 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.gnome.org (pango (bugzilla.gnome.org)) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:28:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Bug 563862] Arial font styles are incorrect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081209152808.EE98A23F509@label.gnome.org> If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=563862 pango | general | Ver: 1.22.x Julian Sikorski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs- | |list at redhat.com -- See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone if you are having problems with the system. You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=563862. From bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.gnome.org Tue Dec 9 15:29:16 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.gnome.org (pango (bugzilla.gnome.org)) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:29:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Bug 563862] Arial font styles are incorrect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081209152916.9ABBF23F509@label.gnome.org> If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=563862 pango | general | Ver: 1.22.x ------- Comment #2 from Julian Sikorski 2008-12-09 15:29 UTC ------- Created an attachment (id=124281) --> (http://bugzilla.gnome.org/attachment.cgi?id=124281&action=view) gtk font selector under pl_PL locale -- See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone if you are having problems with the system. You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=563862. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 18:23:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:23:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812091823.mB9IN6Xf007444@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 18:30:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:30:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812091830.mB9IUgNb019696@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-09 13:30:41 EDT --- FedoraHosted request http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1040 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 18:57:11 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:57:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475606] New: pango-devel-1.22.3-1.fc10 installation error Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: pango-devel-1.22.3-1.fc10 installation error https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475606 Summary: pango-devel-1.22.3-1.fc10 installation error Product: Fedora Version: 10 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: pango AssignedTo: besfahbo at redhat.com ReportedBy: hongjiu.lu at intel.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: besfahbo at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora When I tried to install pango-devel-1.22.3-1.fc10 on x86-64, I got Finished Transaction Test Transaction Check Error: file /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/pango/PangoMarkupFormat.html conflicts between attempted installs of pango-devel-1.22.3-1.fc10.x86_64 and pango-devel-1.22.3-1.fc10.i386 file /usr/share/gtk-doc/html/pango/pango-querymodules.html conflicts between attempted installs of pango-devel-1.22.3-1.fc10.x86_64 and pango-devel-1.22.3-1.fc10.i386 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 20:10:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:10:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475233] pango update i386 conflicts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812092010.mB9KAOYQ014428@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475233 Behdad Esfahbod changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hongjiu.lu at intel.com --- Comment #1 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-09 15:10:22 EDT --- *** Bug 475606 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 20:10:23 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:10:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475606] pango-devel-1.22.3-1.fc10 installation error In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812092010.mB9KANu5014378@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475606 Behdad Esfahbod changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-09 15:10:22 EDT --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 475233 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Tue Dec 9 20:48:08 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:48:08 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] bitstream-vera-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081209204810.A7F6F208DAB@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package bitstream-vera-fonts in Fedora devel was orphaned by behdad To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/bitstream-vera-fonts From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Tue Dec 9 20:48:25 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:48:25 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] bitstream-vera-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081209204826.012BF208DB9@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package bitstream-vera-fonts in Fedora devel is now owned by behdad To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/bitstream-vera-fonts From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Tue Dec 9 20:54:35 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:54:35 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] bitstream-vera-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081209205436.12963208D5A@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package bitstream-vera-fonts in Fedora devel was orphaned by behdad To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/bitstream-vera-fonts From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Tue Dec 9 20:55:01 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:55:01 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] bitstream-vera-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081209205501.8015A208DB3@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package bitstream-vera-fonts in Fedora devel is now owned by nim To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/bitstream-vera-fonts From behdad at fedoraproject.org Tue Dec 9 21:05:15 2008 From: behdad at fedoraproject.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 21:05:15 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/freetype/devel freetype.spec,1.65,1.66 Message-ID: <20081209210515.BE02B700DE@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: behdad Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/freetype/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv19795 Modified Files: freetype.spec Log Message: * Tue Dec 09 2008 Behdad Esfahbod 2.3.7-3 - Add full source URL to Source lines. - Add docs to main and devel package. - rpmlint is happy now. - Resolves: #225770 Index: freetype.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/freetype/devel/freetype.spec,v retrieving revision 1.65 retrieving revision 1.66 diff -u -r1.65 -r1.66 --- freetype.spec 5 Dec 2008 21:20:20 -0000 1.65 +++ freetype.spec 9 Dec 2008 21:04:45 -0000 1.66 @@ -11,13 +11,13 @@ Summary: A free and portable font rendering engine Name: freetype Version: 2.3.7 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} License: FTL or GPLv2+ Group: System Environment/Libraries URL: http://www.freetype.org -Source: freetype-%{version}.tar.bz2 -Source1: freetype-doc-%{version}.tar.bz2 -Source2: ft2demos-%{version}.tar.bz2 +Source: http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/freetype/freetype-%{version}.tar.bz2 +Source1: http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/freetype/freetype-doc-%{version}.tar.bz2 +Source2: http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/freetype/ft2demos-%{version}.tar.bz2 # Add -lm when linking X demos Patch5: ft2demos-2.1.9-mathlib.patch @@ -107,13 +107,17 @@ %if %{with_xfree86} # Build demos -{ - pushd ft2demos-%{version} - make TOP_DIR=".." - popd -} +pushd ft2demos-%{version} +make TOP_DIR=".." +popd %endif +# Convert FTL.txt to UTF-8 +pushd docs +iconv -f latin1 -t utf-8 < FTL.TXT > FTL.TXT.tmp && mv FTL.TXT.tmp FTL.TXT +popd + + %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT @@ -182,7 +186,9 @@ %files %defattr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/libfreetype.so.* -%doc ChangeLog README +%doc README +%doc docs/LICENSE.TXT docs/FTL.TXT docs/GPL.TXT +%doc docs/CHANGES docs/VERSION.DLL docs/formats.txt docs/ft2faq.html %files demos %defattr(-,root,root) @@ -201,6 +207,7 @@ %{_bindir}/fttimer %{_bindir}/ftview %endif +%doc ChangeLog README %files devel %defattr(-,root,root) @@ -211,8 +218,18 @@ %{_libdir}/libfreetype.so %{_bindir}/freetype-config %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/ +%doc docs/design +%doc docs/glyphs +%doc docs/reference +%doc docs/tutorial %changelog +* Tue Dec 09 2008 Behdad Esfahbod 2.3.7-3 +- Add full source URL to Source lines. +- Add docs to main and devel package. +- rpmlint is happy now. +- Resolves: #225770 + * Fri Dec 05 2008 Behdad Esfahbod 2.3.7-2 - Add freetype-autohinter-ligature.patch - Resolves: #368561 @@ -642,7 +659,7 @@ - auto rebuild in the new build environment (release 5) * Thu Mar 18 1999 Cristian Gafton -- fixed the %doc file list +- fixed the doc file list * Wed Feb 24 1999 Preston Brown - Injected new description and group. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Tue Dec 9 21:29:14 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:29:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18928] RFE: add a gfx preview to font packages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081209212914.2B7E913005C@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18928 Behdad Esfahbod changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |freedesktop at behdad.org --- Comment #2 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-09 13:29:13 PST --- Sounds like fun. I can do everything up to generating the PDF. What should we do with it then? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Tue Dec 9 21:30:53 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:30:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18928] RFE: add a gfx preview to font packages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081209213053.6DCE113005A@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18928 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-09 13:30:52 PST --- Thinking about it a bit more, PDF with embedded glyphs would probably run afoul of no-embedding restrictions in some font licenses (including GPL fonts), so a SVG pangram preview is probably a better solution. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 21:32:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:32:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472635] Google Droid fonts licensing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812092132.mB9LWOst025836@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472635 --- Comment #8 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-12-09 16:32:22 EDT --- Chris DiBona at Google let me know that the change has happened upstream: http://review.source.android.com/5401 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Tue Dec 9 21:42:32 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:42:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18928] RFE: add a gfx preview to font packages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081209214233.19DB5130058@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18928 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-09 13:42:26 PST --- I think that if you can generate the preview stuff, Richard just has to define where to install it on the filesystem and how to name it so packagekit can scrape it and display it in its GUI (like it does for desktop icons for example) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Tue Dec 9 21:50:23 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:50:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18928] RFE: add a gfx preview to font packages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081209215023.06C0D13005C@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18928 --- Comment #5 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-09 13:50:22 PST --- If there's any embedding restrictions, the font is useless in Fedora. That happens every time you print anything. We never embed full fonts though. Neither do we embed OpenType tables, etc. We subset, and the subset is as useful as the outlines ending up in a SVG. I don't think there's any problem there. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 22:58:58 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:58:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472635] Google Droid fonts licensing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812092258.mB9MwwFu023007@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472635 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |475661 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 22:58:59 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:58:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812092258.mB9MwxRg023046@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |475661 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 22:58:56 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:58:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475661] Review Request: google-droid-fonts - The Droid font set In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812092258.mB9MwuXu022935@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475661 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |446451 Depends on| |472635, 475593 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 23:00:12 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:00:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in firefox look blurry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812092300.mB9N0C1J023569@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 Andrzej Nowak changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(epsilon at loiv.toru | |n.pl) | --- Comment #17 from Andrzej Nowak 2008-12-09 18:00:11 EDT --- The problem is also present in Seamonkey for FC10. I've attached a screenshot. I've also attached screenshots demonstrating the problem in GEDIT and OOWRITER. I noticed that I was able to reproduce the problem there as well. The font on the screen is liberation sans but the same thing happens with other fonts such as Arial taken directly from MS Windows. Do you still want me to try firefox beta? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 23:02:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:02:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in firefox look blurry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812092302.mB9N2EhJ015038@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 --- Comment #19 from Andrzej Nowak 2008-12-09 18:02:13 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326423) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326423) blurry fonts in gedit -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 23:01:45 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:01:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in firefox look blurry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812092301.mB9N1j0L014884@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 --- Comment #18 from Andrzej Nowak 2008-12-09 18:01:44 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326422) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326422) blurry fonts in oowriter - notice the shaded I, or shades inside the H -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 23:02:12 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:02:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472635] Google Droid fonts licensing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812092302.mB9N2CQ0014978@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472635 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|VERIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |UPSTREAM -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 23:00:55 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:00:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472635] Google Droid fonts licensing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812092300.mB9N0tLU014571@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472635 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |VERIFIED --- Comment #9 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-09 18:00:54 EDT --- Verified the new files. Thanks to everyone involved. Posted the package review request in bug #475661 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 23:04:57 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:04:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in firefox look blurry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812092304.mB9N4vrI024505@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 --- Comment #20 from Andrzej Nowak 2008-12-09 18:04:56 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326424) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326424) blurry fonts in seamonkey completely unusable :( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 23:03:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:03:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812092303.mB9N3ck5024337@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-09 18:03:38 EDT --- Infra did its bit, so here is a new version with the fedorahosted references fixed http://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/fontpackages.spec http://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/fontpackages-1.10-2.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 9 23:02:18 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:02:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475661] Review Request: google-droid-fonts - The Droid font set In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812092302.mB9N2Igg015188@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475661 Bug 475661 depends on bug 472635, which changed state. Bug 472635 Summary: Google Droid fonts licensing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472635 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |VERIFIED Resolution| |UPSTREAM Status|VERIFIED |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 04:08:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 23:08:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812100408.mBA48bKw020680@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |orcanbahri at yahoo.com AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |orcanbahri at yahoo.com Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2008-12-09 23:08:36 EDT --- Thanks for this package. The font packaging guidelines always seemed like a maze to me. I hope this will make things a lot easier. I have a few comments and questions: * rpmlint says: fontpackages-devel.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rpm-fonts-devel fontpackages-filesystem.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rpm-fonts-filesystem Is there a particular reason why you don't provide the obsoletes? I also can't seem to find these packages in our db. Do we really need these obsoletes? fontpackages-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation This can be ignored. * The license tag should be: LGPLv3+ * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) * Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The directories: /usr/share/fonts. /etc/fonts/conf.d are already owned by filesystem and fontconfig. Why share the ownership? - Suggestion: Since you are the upstream, you can provide a Makefile in the source so that you don't have to do those tricks in the SPEC file. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 04:39:00 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 23:39:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 463036] LiberationSans-Bold 'u' and 'W' blurred in smaller sizes. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812100439.mBA4d0u2019754@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463036 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-09 23:38:59 EDT --- liberation-fonts-1.04.92-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 04:39:02 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 23:39:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 463036] LiberationSans-Bold 'u' and 'W' blurred in smaller sizes. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812100439.mBA4d2e7019777@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463036 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Wed Dec 10 04:52:27 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:52:27 -0800 Subject: [Bug 449356] Refactor gfxPangoFontGroup for user fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812100452.mBA4qRec010384@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=449356 --- Comment #25 from Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) 2008-12-09 20:52:15 PST --- Created an attachment (id=352261) --> (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=352261) 1.9.1 memory use (Wanted somewhere to host this image, as I haven't worked out how to prevent blogger from scaling images for me.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 07:14:54 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:14:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812100714.mBA7Es5E015987@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-10 02:14:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Thanks for this package. The font packaging guidelines always seemed like a > maze to me. I hope this will make things a lot easier. I have a few comments > and questions: > > * rpmlint says: > fontpackages-devel.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rpm-fonts-devel > fontpackages-filesystem.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided > rpm-fonts-filesystem > Is there a particular reason why you don't provide the obsoletes? rpm-fonts does not exist in the repo and should not exist. These obsoletes are only there for the people who have played with early versions of this package. I've always intended to remove them shortly, and did so now. > * The license tag should be: LGPLv3+ > > * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) Those are the correct permission and there is no drawback, and lots of advantages, in not specifying them. > * Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. > The directories: > /usr/share/fonts. > /etc/fonts/conf.d > are already owned by filesystem and fontconfig. Why share the ownership? As posted on the guideline change plan they will be removed from those other packages after this one is available to keep font policy in a single place. > - Suggestion: Since you are the upstream, you can provide a Makefile in the > source so that you don't have to do those tricks in the SPEC file. You'll find out that to keep directory info in a single place, the macro file, you'd need to play rpm tricks in this Makefile, and at this point it's stupid to do it out of rpm spec space New packages http://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/fontpackages.spec http://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/fontpackages-1.11-1.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 07:53:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:53:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812100753.mBA7rchq023504@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2008-12-10 02:53:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > * Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. > > The directories: > > /usr/share/fonts. > > /etc/fonts/conf.d > > are already owned by filesystem and fontconfig. Why share the ownership? > > As posted on the guideline change plan they will be removed from those other > packages after this one is available to keep font policy in a single place. > Sorry, I missed that part. > > - Suggestion: Since you are the upstream, you can provide a Makefile in the > > source so that you don't have to do those tricks in the SPEC file. > > You'll find out that to keep directory info in a single place, the macro file, > you'd need to play rpm tricks in this Makefile, and at this point it's stupid > to do it out of rpm spec space > It was just my suggestion and I respect your decision. I'll approve the package as soon as I see the official FPC announcement. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 08:34:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:34:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475743] New: Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475743 Summary: Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: VLGothic-fonts AssignedTo: ryo-dairiki at users.sourceforge.net ReportedBy: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: tagoh at redhat.com, ryo-dairiki at users.sourceforge.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Classification: Fedora Description of problem: Since VLGothic-fonts is upgraded to 20081203, I see many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment. Downloading to 20081029 works good. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): VLGothic-fonts-20081203-2.fc11 (perhaps?) cjkunifonts-ukai-0.2.20080216.1-10.fc11.noarch.rpm cjkunifonts-uming-0.2.20080216.1-10.fc11.noarch.rpm How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. For example, the following URL: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/policycoreutils/po/ja.po?root=elvis&r1=1.24&r2=1.25 Actual results: See attached -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 08:36:21 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:36:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475743] Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812100836.mBA8aLHc032146@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475743 --- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka 2008-12-10 03:36:20 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326463) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326463) screenshot with VLGothic 20081203 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 08:37:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:37:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475743] Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812100837.mBA8b6Oo006898@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475743 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka 2008-12-10 03:37:06 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326465) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326465) screenshot with VLGothic 20081029 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 08:39:27 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:39:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475743] Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812100839.mBA8dRMJ032481@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475743 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka 2008-12-10 03:39:27 EDT --- Also with 20081203 the glyphs of arabic numerals frequently changes. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Wed Dec 10 09:49:45 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:49:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18928] RFE: add a gfx preview to font packages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081210094945.2DBA5130058@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18928 --- Comment #6 from Richard Hughes 2008-12-10 01:49:44 PST --- Can we dump the file in /usr/share/fonts/preview/? I would prefer a svg from a programming point of view. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 10:18:44 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:18:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 456527] Review Request: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812101018.mBAAIiI5028911@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527 Rahul Bhalerao changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(rbhalera at redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #10 from Rahul Bhalerao 2008-12-10 05:18:43 EDT --- Hi, Sorry for the delay. Here are the updated spec and source rpms. Spec URL: http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/sil-gentium-basic-fonts/sil-gentium-basic-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/sil-gentium-basic-fonts/sil-gentium-basic-fonts-1.1-3.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 10:59:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:59:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475743] Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812101059.mBAAxQum030280@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475743 Akira TAGOH changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo? --- Comment #4 from Akira TAGOH 2008-12-10 05:59:25 EDT --- my rawhide box is broken now so I can't do any testing... so just guessing, is this issue gone if you do remove /etc/fonts/conf.d/64-ttf-arphic-uming.conf or add testing for Chinese like: zh sans-serif AR PL UMing HK AR PL UMing CN instead of preference alias? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 11:37:36 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:37:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475743] Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812101137.mBABbaVU005835@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475743 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka 2008-12-10 06:37:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > is > this issue gone if you do remove /etc/fonts/conf.d/64-ttf-arphic-uming.conf It seems this works > or > add testing for Chinese like: > > > instead of preference alias? Would you tell me to what file? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 12:10:39 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:10:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in firefox look blurry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812101210.mBACAd2N019042@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 Ben Laenen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bl.bugs at gmail.com --- Comment #21 from Ben Laenen 2008-12-10 07:10:38 EDT --- Maybe you should get a copy of freetype that has the bytecode interpreter enabled so you don't have to use the freetype autohinter anymore. Using the truetype hinting instructions from the font itself will make it much more crisp. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 12:25:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:25:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in firefox look blurry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812101225.mBACPhbU022864@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 --- Comment #22 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-10 07:25:42 EDT --- The reporter writes that the same fonts work fine in the rest of the desktop gui, that also uses the system freetype with autohinting. Thus clearly the problem is not the system freetype or cairo libs, the problem lies in the way firefox uses them. Investigation will probably show that: 1. firefox fails to pass a crucial rendering parameter to one of the system libs, or 2. that since firefox insists on duplicating a private font configuration system in prefs.js (instead of using the desktop settings broadcasted via XSettings), it's missing one parameter which had been set desktop-side and not duplicated by the user manually in prefs.js. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 12:47:09 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:47:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in GNOME look blurry (was: "in Firefox") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812101247.mBACl9A6027100@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 Andrzej Nowak changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Fonts in firefox look |Fonts in GNOME look blurry |blurry |(was: "in Firefox") --- Comment #23 from Andrzej Nowak 2008-12-10 07:47:08 EDT --- Nicolas, please note that in recent updates I've also attached screenshots of other Gnome applications which are affected, the problem is not Firefox specific, however it is best visible in Firefox. However, you still might be right. I'm not closely familiar with the structure of the font subsystem in Gnome. More importantly, I have another system, a FC7 upgraded to FC10 and everything is fine there - fonts are less crisp than in MS Windows, but much better than on the attached screenshots and they're perfectly fine for daily usage. I don't understand where this difference in rendering comes from, since the system with the clean install is the one with the problems. If this is not a freefont problem, where should this be reported? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Wed Dec 10 13:26:40 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:26:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 13416] Font subfamilies merged In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081210132640.DD1B713005A@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13416 --- Comment #7 from Julian Sikorski 2008-12-10 05:26:39 PST --- Please have a look into this issue, no document using Arial Narrow font can be displayed properly at this point. It's likely that in order to fix this properly bug #18725 will have to be fixed first. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 14:09:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:09:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in GNOME look blurry (was: "in Firefox") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812101409.mBAE9oqC007635@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net --- Comment #24 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-10 09:09:48 EDT --- That's something else entirely, if the whole system behaves the same way, everything is probably working fine. Font settings are highly subjective, their effects depend on the hardware you have, and what's best for one font won't necessarily be best for another, so two different systems, with different hardware, and defaults from different years, behaving differently, is most definitely NOTABUG. If you prefer the old defaults you just have to copy them from the old system to the new one. Note however that unless the hardware is identical there is no warranty you'll find them as satisfying on one system compared to the other. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 15:10:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:10:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in GNOME look blurry (was: "in Firefox") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812101510.mBAFAhZF024224@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 --- Comment #25 from Andrzej Nowak 2008-12-10 10:10:41 EDT --- I see your point, however it most likely is not my case that you are writing about. With all due respect, ever since I have filed this bug I have been treated like a novice. Please look again at the screenshots I've attached. The hardware correctly displays incorrect rendering, the hard evidence is on the images, which are screenshots, not photographs of my screen, so they look the same on any reasonable screen or graphics card. I highly doubt that the rendering visible on my screenshots is intentional to make up for hardware deficiencies, and if it is, the software incorrectly recognizes the hardware as deficient. Changing any setting - be it DPI, antialiasing, pixel order, font smoothing - yields worse results. Trust me, I've experimented with that a lot before deciding to bother people here at bugzilla, who already have a lot of other stuff to worry about. Both systems I own have exactly the same font settings, although the hardware configurations are different, and that's because they give the best results. On both systems fonts look perfectly fine in MS Windows and Fedora 6 and Fedora 7, however on one of them Fedora 10 displays crap. Therefore, although I am aware that this might not be the case, I trust that there is no problem with my hardware (which is, on a side note, definitely not low end). In essence, a fresh install of Fedora is nearly unusable for me because of this issue and I am willing to help you make it better, so that less people experience the problem. But I need assistance with that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 15:28:21 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:28:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in GNOME look blurry (was: "in Firefox") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812101528.mBAFSLno029401@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net | --- Comment #26 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-10 10:28:20 EDT --- I've seen the screenshots. They don't correspond to my own preferences as displayed on my hardware (the rendering on another screen may be different depending on pixel density, RVB repartition, gamma settings, etc). However as I wrote before those preferences are subjective and if there is one thing I've learnt since working on fonts is that if you show 3 different screenshots to three different people they'll all choose a different one as the crapiest and will be convinced the two others share their POW. So that's not conclusive. Post a screenshot of what you consider good and people like Behdad may tell you how to achieve this kind of rendering. I've stopped playing this game long ago. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 15:37:12 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:37:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in GNOME look blurry (was: "in Firefox") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812101537.mBAFbCmI004704@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 Orion Poplawski changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|orion at cora.nwra.com | --- Comment #27 from Orion Poplawski 2008-12-10 10:37:11 EDT --- Can we please get this assigned to the proper component (and get me out of the loop)? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 16:36:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:36:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812101636.mBAGaoYW016275@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2008-12-10 11:36:48 EDT --- No need to wait more. I got confirmation from an FPC member. ----------------------------------------------- This package (fontpackages) is approved by oget ----------------------------------------------- Other than this, is there any draft yet for the new guidelines? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 19:10:15 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:10:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472418] Review Request: xmbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812101910.mBAJAFUV022824@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472418 Lucian Langa changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |cooly at gnome.eu.org Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 19:38:44 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:38:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 467982] anaconda doesn't render glyphs with the proper font In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812101938.mBAJciNq029401@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467982 Andy Lindeberg changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 19:39:19 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:39:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472418] Review Request: xmbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812101939.mBAJdJLm022756@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472418 Lucian Langa changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Lucian Langa 2008-12-10 14:39:18 EDT --- Review: OK source files match upstream: 27872bb7473e5d64d9a24281ae6ad3d9 xmbdfed-4.7.tar.bz2 OK package meets naming and versioning guidelines. OK specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. OK summary is OK. OK description is OK. OK dist tag is present. OK build root is OK. OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. OK license text included in package. NOT OK BuildRequires are proper. OK compiler flags are appropriate. OK %clean is present. OK package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). OK package installs properly. OK debuginfo package looks complete. OK rpmlint is silent. OK final provides and requires are sane: xmbdfed = 4.7-2.fc11 xmbdfed(x86-64) = 4.7-2.fc11 = libICE.so.6()(64bit) libSM.so.6()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libXext.so.6()(64bit) libXm.so.2()(64bit) libXmu.so.6()(64bit) libXpm.so.4()(64bit) libXt.so.6()(64bit) libfreetype.so.6()(64bit) xorg-x11-fonts-misc OK %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I was able to run the program fine after adding correct Requires N/A no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. OK owns the directories it creates. OK doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. OK no duplicates in %files. OK file permissions are appropriate. OK code, not content. OK documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. OK %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. OK no headers. OK no pkgconfig files. OK no static libraries. OK no libtool .la files. OK desktop file present and correctly installed Must: - Please add desktop-file-utils as dependency (correctly installing desktop files) Suggestions: - Please consider preserving timestamps on installed files - Please also keep the classical order of files for fedora spec files APPROVED. (but please fix BR) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 20:00:51 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:00:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475743] Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812102000.mBAK0pf1027346@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475743 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-10 15:00:50 EDT --- Behdad recently wanted to experiment with new syntax to deal with fonts that need locale-specific ordering. You should try to ping him to check if he hasn't a better fontconfig recipe. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 20:16:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:16:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812102016.mBAKGclS006183@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-10 15:16:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > ----------------------------------------------- > This package (fontpackages) is approved by oget > ----------------------------------------------- Thank you > Other than this, is there any draft yet for the new guidelines? The new templates are in this rpm (FPC approved). I'll turn them in nice wiki pages and hunt all traces of current guidelines once FESCO has approved it. I don't really see the point of doing it before. This is quite a lot of wiki work and if FESCO asks for changes in the templates this work will have to be done twice. Better to keep the proposal in one place for now IMHO. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: fontpackages Short Description: Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages Owners: nim Branches: F10, F9, devel InitialCC: fonts-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 21:19:09 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:19:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472418] Review Request: xmbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812102119.mBALJ9p6021580@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472418 --- Comment #5 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-12-10 16:19:08 EDT --- - Please also keep the classical order of files for fedora spec files What do you mean by that? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 21:32:12 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:32:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472418] Review Request: xmbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812102132.mBALWC5A024607@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472418 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-12-10 16:32:11 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xmbdfed Short Description: Bitmap Font Editor Owners: spot Branches: EL-5 F-9 F-10 devel InitialCC: ... and it's done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 21:32:54 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:32:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 456527] Review Request: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812102132.mBALWsAi024750@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(rbhalera at redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #11 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-10 16:32:53 EDT --- Hi Rahul, At this point, since FPC approved the new packaging templates yesterday, and FESCO will review them next week, it's probably more productive if you target the new templates directly (that will probably also make my next request easier). Otherwise you'll just spend time on the old template and I'll ask you to change it all next week. So just install the fontpackages* rpm from http://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/ check /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec and use it as a template to make an rpm with two subpackages (one for gentium basic and one for gentium book basic) Then you can look at /usr/share/doc/fontpackages-devel-1.11/fontconfig-templates/substitution-font-template.conf for the substitution rules (but your current rules do not seem too bad) However, your xml is broken. Please always check your xml files with xmllint --format before submission. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 22:04:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:04:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473836] Fonts in GNOME look blurry (was: "in Firefox") In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812102204.mBAM4Un8031268@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473836 --- Comment #28 from Andrzej Nowak 2008-12-10 17:04:28 EDT --- Ben: Many thanks for your advice. I recompiled freetype and I've included the bytecode interpreter. While not perfect, the fonts look MUCH better. My original question, as to why they were ugly from the beginning (I guess many people would agree that what is on the screenshots is not very readable), remains unanswered. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 22:02:58 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:02:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472418] Review Request: xmbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812102202.mBAM2wFM031064@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472418 --- Comment #7 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-12-10 17:02:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > BTW this one may be a better option for packaging (didn't actually try any of > them) > > http://www.math.nmsu.edu/~mleisher/Software/gbdfed/ Looks like the GTK version of this package. I'm willing to maintain them both: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475884 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 22:02:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:02:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 432184] Firefox "organise status bar" extensions conflicts with IcedTeaPlugin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812102202.mBAM2KNs030863@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432184 Bug Zapper changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |10 --- Comment #30 from Bug Zapper 2008-11-25 21:06:38 EDT --- This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle. Changing version to '10'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping --- Comment #31 from Deepak Bhole 2008-12-10 17:02:15 EDT --- Nice catch Mark! I am able to reproduce this now as well. I am not sure that the bug is in the plugin though. From what I can trace, the plugin calls nsPluginInstancePeerImpl::ShowStatus() to set the status message, and then it crashes somewhere inside mozilla code. Sun plugin may be using some other way to set the status, but the method we use is a documented api and it shouldn't be crashing like this. I will look into this a bit deeper later, but this looks a lot like a problem in mozilla/the osb extension. Also, the crash on my end is reproducible on any applet page, not just the font surveys. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 22:06:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:06:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472418] Review Request: xmbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812102206.mBAM6gEC025640@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472418 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-10 17:06:42 EDT --- xmbdfed-4.7-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xmbdfed-4.7-3.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 10 22:06:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:06:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472418] Review Request: xmbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812102206.mBAM6k3t025676@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472418 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-10 17:06:46 EDT --- xmbdfed-4.7-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xmbdfed-4.7-3.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Wed Dec 10 23:25:27 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:25:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18928] RFE: add a gfx preview to font packages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081210232527.365AB130058@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18928 --- Comment #7 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-10 15:25:26 PST --- (In reply to comment #6) > Can we dump the file in /usr/share/fonts/preview/? I would prefer a svg from a > programming point of view. We can. Actually it occurred to me that I need to fix more infrastructure for this to work... Namely, this one: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=347237 -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Wed Dec 10 23:37:10 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:37:10 -0800 Subject: [Bug 455647] [Indic] Firefox displays garbage Indic characters on parts of some English webpages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812102337.mBANb9h8011556@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455647 Daniel Veditz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #339182|approval1.9.0.6? |approval1.9.0.6+ Flag| | --- Comment #30 from Daniel Veditz 2008-12-10 15:37:00 PST --- (From update of attachment 339182) Approved for 1.9.0.6, a=dveditz for release-drivers. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Thu Dec 11 00:25:13 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:25:13 -0800 Subject: [Bug 455647] [Indic] Firefox displays garbage Indic characters on parts of some English webpages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812110025.mBB0PCRJ000953@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455647 Mike Beltzner changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |fixed1.9.1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 11 01:08:07 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:08:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 467982] anaconda doesn't render glyphs with the proper font In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812110108.mBB187i5025850@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467982 --- Comment #13 from MATSUURA Takanori 2008-12-10 20:08:06 EDT --- Sometimes, font switching in pango is irresponsible?especially in alias fonts (serif, sans-serif, monospace). Firefox used to have the similar problem and has been fixed. http://bugzilla.mozilla.gr.jp/show_bug.cgi?id=5180 (Mozilla-gumi bugzilla; in Japanese) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=339513 (bmo) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 11 01:13:51 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:13:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475743] Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812110113.mBB1DpuD000606@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475743 --- Comment #7 from Akira TAGOH 2008-12-10 20:13:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Would you tell me to what file? Try to replace: sans-serif AR PL UMing HK AR PL UMing CN in 64-ttf-arphic-uming.conf with the above for sans-serif. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 11 01:19:56 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:19:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475743] Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812110119.mBB1Ju6E027400@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475743 Akira TAGOH changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |besfahbo at redhat.com Flag| |needinfo?(besfahbo at redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #8 from Akira TAGOH 2008-12-10 20:19:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Behdad recently wanted to experiment with new syntax to deal with fonts that > need locale-specific ordering. You should try to ping him to check if he hasn't > a better fontconfig recipe. Aha. Cc'ing him. Behdad, do you have any idea to resolve a kind of locale-specific ordering issue in fontconfig? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 11 05:38:56 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:38:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472418] Review Request: xmbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812110538.mBB5cuEP012294@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472418 --- Comment #10 from Lucian Langa 2008-12-11 00:38:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > - Please also keep the classical order of files for fedora spec files > > What do you mean by that? what i meant was the usual order of fields in spec file e.g. Name: Version: Release: Summary: Group: License: URL: Source0: BuildRoot: BuildRequires: Requires: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Thu Dec 11 06:04:10 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:04:10 -0800 Subject: [Bug 458169] [@font-face] implement downloadable font support on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812110604.mBB64AX6002222@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458169 Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #351146|src:url() v1.1 - use |src:url() v1.1 - use description|cairo's FT_Library [pushed |cairo's FT_Library [pushed |to m-c] |to m-c and 1.9.1] --- Comment #27 from Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) 2008-12-10 22:04:03 PST --- (From update of attachment 351146) http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-1.9.1/rev/6510330ddad7 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Thu Dec 11 06:04:55 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:04:55 -0800 Subject: [Bug 458169] [@font-face] implement downloadable font support on Linux In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812110604.mBB64t59003282@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458169 Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |fixed1.9.1 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Thu Dec 11 06:11:46 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:11:46 -0800 Subject: [Bug 455647] [Indic] Firefox displays garbage Indic characters on parts of some English webpages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812110611.mBB6Bktv004916@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455647 Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |fixed1.9.0.6 --- Comment #31 from Karl Tomlinson (:karlt) 2008-12-10 22:11:42 PST --- http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?module=PhoenixTinderbox&branch=HEAD&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot&date=explicit&mindate=1228973642&maxdate=1228973890&who=karlt%2B%25karlt.net -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.gnome.org Thu Dec 11 06:47:26 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.gnome.org (pango (bugzilla.gnome.org)) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:47:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Bug 347237] Making Pango use a given cairo_font_face_t In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081211064727.0419223F51E@label.gnome.org> If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=347237 pango | general | Ver: unspecified Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs- | |list at redhat.com -- See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone if you are having problems with the system. You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=347237. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 11 06:51:05 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:51:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 423191] [ml_IN] combination is INCorrect with 0d30 [consonant+0d4d+0d30] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812110651.mBB6p5EJ023492@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=423191 A S Alam changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|VERIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 11 06:50:48 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:50:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 423191] [ml_IN] combination is INCorrect with 0d30 [consonant+0d4d+0d30] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812110650.mBB6omA4017634@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=423191 A S Alam changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |VERIFIED --- Comment #5 from A S Alam 2008-12-11 01:50:47 EDT --- it is fixed and working fine with following package: pango-1.20.4-1.fc9 lohit-fonts-malayalam-2.2.1-2.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 11 09:53:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:53:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 429526] [ml_IN]: Removal of a glyph from font file In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812110953.mBB9rMKR026399@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429526 A S Alam changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|VERIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 11 09:53:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:53:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 429526] [ml_IN]: Removal of a glyph from font file In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812110953.mBB9r6nL026346@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429526 A S Alam changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |VERIFIED --- Comment #8 from A S Alam 2008-12-11 04:53:05 EDT --- Bug is fixed, verified with following pacakge: lohit-fonts-malayalam-2.2.1-2.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 11 09:53:23 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 04:53:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 429527] [ml_IN]: Removal of a glyph from font file In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812110953.mBB9rNqM026421@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429527 Bug 429527 depends on bug 429526, which changed state. Bug 429526 Summary: [ml_IN]: Removal of a glyph from font file https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=429526 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |VERIFIED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Status|VERIFIED |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From hdu at openoffice.org Thu Dec 11 15:57:58 2008 From: hdu at openoffice.org (hdu at openoffice.org) Date: 11 Dec 2008 15:57:58 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081211155758.25323.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 User hdu changed the following: What |Old value |New value ================================================================================ Target milestone|OOo 3.1 |OOo 3.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Additional comments from hdu at openoffice.org Thu Dec 11 15:57:57 +0000 2008 ------- With feature freeze for OOo31 being today (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/OOoRelease31) and some other related CWSses in the queue the target 3.1 becomes unrealistic -> updating --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 12 01:05:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:05:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 456527] Review Request: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812120105.mBC15c6x032729@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527 --- Comment #12 from Jens Petersen 2008-12-11 20:05:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > However, your xml is broken. Please always check your xml files with xmllint > --format before submission. Would it make sense to run xmllint in all fonts packages %build or %install to check for errors? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 12 05:40:34 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:40:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 424701] [ml_IN] words are shown joined (very low space shown on screen) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812120540.mBC5eYgQ014712@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=424701 A S Alam changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|VERIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 12 05:40:18 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:40:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 424701] [ml_IN] words are shown joined (very low space shown on screen) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812120540.mBC5eIpE014644@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=424701 A S Alam changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |VERIFIED --- Comment #8 from A S Alam 2008-12-12 00:40:16 EDT --- fixed with following package: pango-1.20.4-1.fc9 lohit-fonts-malayalam-2.2.1-2.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 12 05:54:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 00:54:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 456527] Review Request: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812120554.mBC5sbP5005398@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527 --- Comment #13 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-12 00:54:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > However, your xml is broken. Please always check your xml files with xmllint > > --format before submission. > > Would it make sense to run xmllint in all fonts packages %build or %install to > check for errors? IMHO this would needlessly complexify font specs just at the time we've finally made them simple. Since fontconfig config files are not supposed to change that often, this check belongs more in rpmlint or the package auto reviewer IMHO (check being: check that all files installed in the fontconfig dir as defined by fontpackages-filesystem validate against the current fontconfig DTD) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 12 06:43:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:43:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475743] Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812120643.mBC6hgEb012842@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475743 --- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka 2008-12-12 01:43:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Would you tell me to what file? > > Try to replace: > > > sans-serif > > AR PL UMing HK > AR PL UMing CN > > > > in 64-ttf-arphic-uming.conf with the above for sans-serif. Thanks. This seems to work for Japanese locale (I cannot test for Chinese locale because I don't use it and I don't know where to check...) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 12 06:54:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:54:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475743] Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812120654.mBC6scnr026019@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475743 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka 2008-12-12 01:54:38 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326711) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326711) glyphs of arabic numerals By the way is it a different issue that the glyphs (especially the widths) of arabic numerals change according to contexts? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 12 11:12:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:12:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 458428] [Indic] Firefox displays garbage Indic characters on parts of some English webpages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812121112.mBCBCU1u011440@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458428 --- Comment #12 from Martin Stransky 2008-12-12 06:12:28 EDT --- *** Bug 460865 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From rene at openoffice.org Fri Dec 12 15:42:05 2008 From: rene at openoffice.org (rene at openoffice.org) Date: 12 Dec 2008 15:42:05 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081212154205.20533.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 ------- Additional comments from rene at openoffice.org Fri Dec 12 15:42:05 +0000 2008 ------- hdu: at least the tarball is actually *not* in svn and configure does this: if ! test -f ../graphite/download/silgraphite-2.3.tar.gz; then AC_MSG_ERROR([silgraphite tarball not found in graphite/download]) fi is that really intended to stay so? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From rene at openoffice.org Fri Dec 12 15:42:05 2008 From: rene at openoffice.org (rene at openoffice.org) Date: 12 Dec 2008 15:42:05 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081212154205.20533.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 ------- Additional comments from rene at openoffice.org Fri Dec 12 15:42:05 +0000 2008 ------- hdu: at least the tarball is actually *not* in svn and configure does this: if ! test -f ../graphite/download/silgraphite-2.3.tar.gz; then AC_MSG_ERROR([silgraphite tarball not found in graphite/download]) fi is that really intended to stay so? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From hdu at openoffice.org Fri Dec 12 16:27:30 2008 From: hdu at openoffice.org (hdu at openoffice.org) Date: 12 Dec 2008 16:27:30 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081212162730.8904.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 User hdu changed the following: What |Old value |New value ================================================================================ CC|'fedorafonts,mh,rene' |'fedorafonts,hjs,rene' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Additional comments from hdu at openoffice.org Fri Dec 12 16:27:29 +0000 2008 ------- > is that really intended to stay so? I guess not. But I wouldn't consider the CWS complete (from DEV-perspective) until Keith gives his OK. @kstribley: I guess Rene has a point that the tar.gz should be commited @ause: Actually I'm not 100% sure if this is correct? Or should the build process download such files into the download folder of external module's? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From rene at openoffice.org Fri Dec 12 16:19:03 2008 From: rene at openoffice.org (rene at openoffice.org) Date: 12 Dec 2008 16:19:03 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081212161903.5841.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 User rene changed the following: What |Old value |New value ================================================================================ CC|'fedorafonts,mh' |'fedorafonts,mh,rene' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From rene at openoffice.org Fri Dec 12 17:13:24 2008 From: rene at openoffice.org (rene at openoffice.org) Date: 12 Dec 2008 17:13:24 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081212171324.29179.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 ------- Additional comments from rene at openoffice.org Fri Dec 12 17:13:24 +0000 2008 ------- hdu: right, I was referring to your Dec, 3 comment :-) well, common pratice for (almost) all external modules except the infamous moz is the tarball being in the tree. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From rene at openoffice.org Fri Dec 12 17:18:02 2008 From: rene at openoffice.org (rene at openoffice.org) Date: 12 Dec 2008 17:18:02 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081212171802.1340.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 ------- Additional comments from rene at openoffice.org Fri Dec 12 17:18:01 +0000 2008 ------- kstribley: btw, I made SYSTEM_GRAPHITE (which you already check for in graphites makefile.mk) actually checked for and defined and did some more cleanups (-> BUILD_TYPE). Hope you don't mind :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From rene at openoffice.org Fri Dec 12 17:46:28 2008 From: rene at openoffice.org (rene at openoffice.org) Date: 12 Dec 2008 17:46:28 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081212174628.13241.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 ------- Additional comments from rene at openoffice.org Fri Dec 12 17:46:27 +0000 2008 ------- mmh, actually I am wrong, the tarball is in svn. So the configure.in thing is obsolete. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 13 14:59:52 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:59:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472418] Review Request: xmbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812131459.mBDExqcu021977@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472418 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-13 09:59:51 EDT --- xmbdfed-4.7-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 13 14:59:54 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:59:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472418] Review Request: xmbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812131459.mBDExsHG022010@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472418 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 13 15:00:02 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:00:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472418] Review Request: xmbdfed - Bitmap Font Editor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812131500.mBDF02F9007538@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472418 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-13 10:00:01 EDT --- xmbdfed-4.7-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 14 05:01:58 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:01:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812140501.mBE51wmU011429@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-14 00:01:57 EDT --- Does this really need to go into F9/F10? Thats going to be a lot of churn to change all the fonts packages in stable reases. Or do you see new fonts using them going into those releases? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 15 01:49:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:49:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475389] Loss of hinting instructions on changes/saving. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812150149.mBF1nMNX027289@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475389 Kevin Fenzi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-14 20:49:21 EDT --- It's sounding like upstream is saying this is not a bug, as changing one glyph may change others hinting instructions. Do you want to keep this open and consult more with upstream? Or shall we close it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 15 03:50:59 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:50:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475389] Loss of hinting instructions on changes/saving. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812150350.mBF3oxBY014868@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475389 --- Comment #2 from Caius CHANCE 2008-12-14 22:50:58 EDT --- ok please close this bug -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 15 06:00:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:00:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476427] [te_IN] - Consonant+Virama+Consonant+Virama+space renders the second virama as a separate glyph in lohit-telugu font In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812150600.mBF60kUK021735@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476427 A S Alam changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|unspecified |10 Component|Telugu [te] |lohit-fonts CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com, | |petersen at redhat.com, | |rbhalera at redhat.com AssignedTo|kkrothap at redhat.com |rbhalera at redhat.com QAContact|kkrothap at redhat.com |extras-qa at fedoraproject.org Product|Fedora Localization |Fedora --- Comment #1 from A S Alam 2008-12-15 01:00:45 EDT --- Changing Product to Fedora -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 15 06:33:48 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:33:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476427] [te_IN] - Consonant+Virama+Consonant+Virama+space renders the second virama as a separate glyph in lohit-telugu font In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812150633.mBF6XmNe009409@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476427 A S Alam changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- External Bug ID| |GNOME Desktop 516947 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 15 09:40:10 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 04:40:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812150940.mBF9eAE8027052@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 --- Comment #9 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-15 04:40:09 EDT --- This is for new fonts. A lot of packagers will only work on new packages if they can import in stable release without waiting F11 time. I will actively discourage anyone who suggests converting existing F9 and F10 packages to the new templates. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 15 11:02:13 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:02:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 457947] Review Request: oldstandard-sfd-fonts - Old Standard Fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812151102.mBFB2DcR028218@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947 --- Comment #22 from Ankur Sinha 2008-12-15 06:02:10 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) > > The doc on changelog doesnt tell me which ones dist and which ones version.. :( > > so i havent changed that in this one.. (pablo please help me with this) > It's quite simple to understand, for exemple, your spec: > Version: 1.1 > Release: 1%{?dist} > The number after "Version:" is the version one, it's given by upstream and you > must not change it. So put "1.0" as it's the version of the font. > The "Release:" number is a distro/package specific number, so each time you add > an entry in the changelog, you increment by one this number. So currently, it > should be "3%{?dist}". > > Also your changelog format is not correct, you have to add your email address > as said in the guidelines > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs). > > > > The warnings for the docs is still present.. How do i correct that? > You should add the code proposed by Nicolas in the review request of the > bonveno fonts in the %prep section . > > > You have many font substitution examples in the dejavu font packages. Do not > > forget to declare your font is an acceptable substitute for all the different > > Old Standard variant out there (TTF, OTF, etc) > Ok, so you have to duplicate the XML code I gave you, and just change the first > Old Standard to Old Standard TTF. > For register this font as a serif one, add the following to the fontconfig > file: > > serif > > Old Standard SFD > > hi, sorry for the delay.. Fedora 10 got me stuck up a bit.. Here are packages.. I used the new source the author has uploaded.. Also the FONTLOG in the src zip has version 2.0.2 so i used that in the spec. http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard_sfd_fonts/oldstandard-sfd-fonts-2.0.2-1.fc10.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard_sfd_fonts/oldstandard-sfd-fonts.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From kstribley at openoffice.org Mon Dec 15 11:07:15 2008 From: kstribley at openoffice.org (kstribley at openoffice.org) Date: 15 Dec 2008 11:07:15 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081215110715.13585.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 ------- Additional comments from kstribley at openoffice.org Mon Dec 15 11:07:15 +0000 2008 ------- @rene: Thanks for adding the --with-system-graphite option. I've modified the check slightly so that it also checks that the system STL is being used. Otherwise, if you have graphite built with system STL and OOo built with Stlport you will get a crash since graphite uses stl objects in its interface. I also moved the graphite check further down in the sequence order since this seemed to avoid some obscure problems I was getting with --with-system-graphite=no --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 15 11:45:41 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:45:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 457955] Review Request: bonvenocf-fonts - BonvenoCF font In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812151145.mBFBjf8q018710@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457955 --- Comment #12 from Ankur Sinha 2008-12-15 06:45:40 EDT --- hi, new packages..sorry for the delay. http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/cf-bonveno-fonts/cf-bonveno-fonts-1.1-1.fc10.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/cf-bonveno-fonts/cf-bonveno-fonts.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From rene at openoffice.org Mon Dec 15 11:53:15 2008 From: rene at openoffice.org (rene at openoffice.org) Date: 15 Dec 2008 11:53:15 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081215115315.2410.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 ------- Additional comments from rene at openoffice.org Mon Dec 15 11:53:14 +0000 2008 ------- kstribley: you added "-a "$USE_SYSTEM_STL" = "YES";"? I am sorry, but this is broken, this will silently make people use internal mysql when they configured --with-system-mysql. *IF* you add such a check, please make it fail. reverted. Will write a proper check. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From rene at openoffice.org Mon Dec 15 13:17:23 2008 From: rene at openoffice.org (rene at openoffice.org) Date: 15 Dec 2008 13:17:23 -0000 Subject: [Issue 93645] Add a Graphite module to support Graphite Smart Fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081215131723.23519.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=93645 ------- Additional comments from rene at openoffice.org Mon Dec 15 13:17:23 +0000 2008 ------- kstribley: committed + AC_MSG_CHECKING([STL compatibility]) + if test "$WITH_STLPORT" != "no"; then + AC_MSG_ERROR([to use system graphite you need to use --without-stlport]) + else + AC_MSG_RESULT([OK]) + fi instead --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 15 14:09:13 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:09:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 466369] font rendering is messed up after 20081007 changes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812151409.mBFE9Dqb018299@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466369 Matthias Runge changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mrunge at fedoraproject.org --- Comment #33 from Matthias Runge 2008-12-15 09:09:10 EDT --- Seems to occur on Thinkpad T43 with ATI X300, too. Problem seems to be fixed with xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.9.0-54.fc10, exists with xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.9.0-62.fc10 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476070 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 15 17:34:33 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:34:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812151734.mBFHYXwd015173@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 Ray Strode changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |coldfusionpc at yahoo.com --- Comment #62 from Ray Strode 2008-12-15 12:34:32 EDT --- *** Bug 476556 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 15 17:53:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:53:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812151753.mBFHrUf6018970@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #63 from Matt Castelein 2008-12-15 12:53:25 EDT --- If this is in testing, why does "yum update freetype --enablerepo=updates-testing" not find it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 15 18:11:08 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:11:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812151811.mBFIB8Fs007049@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #64 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-15 13:11:07 EDT --- On F10 I pushed it to updates yesterday. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 15 18:15:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:15:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812151815.mBFIFUI3023487@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #65 from Matt Castelein 2008-12-15 13:15:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #64) > On F10 I pushed it to updates yesterday. "yum update freetype" gives me "No Packages marked for Update," yet I do not have this updated version. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Mon Dec 15 19:05:53 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:05:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 1281] Use a public identifier for fonts.conf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081215190553.9D8DA130057@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1281 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs- | |list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Mon Dec 15 19:25:40 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:25:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 1281] Use a public identifier for fonts.conf In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081215192540.6DED6130058@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1281 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-15 11:25:39 PST --- I don't really know DTD, it is old, but I feel it does not require a resolvable URL anywhere Fow xsds this is even more clear, take a look at "Should the targetNamespace be a URL or a URN?" on http://www.xfront.com/BestPracticesHomepage.html When in doubt ask xml-dev on http://www.xml.org/xml-dev The people here are nice and knowledgeable (they wrote the specs) -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Mon Dec 15 19:54:36 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:54:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18872] Need a way to (auto)play invisible Flash files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081215195436.222BA130056@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18872 --- Comment #2 from Riccardo Magliocchetti 2008-12-15 11:54:32 PST --- For this particular case there is a simple workaround: Set "autoplay -> always enable" from another swf, do the survey, go back to your previous autoplay setting. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 15 20:18:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:18:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812152018.mBFKIQBe013819@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 Dennis Gilmore changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #10 from Dennis Gilmore 2008-12-15 15:18:25 EDT --- CVS Done -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 15 22:15:25 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:15:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475389] Loss of hinting instructions on changes/saving. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812152215.mBFMFPi4002467@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475389 Kevin Fenzi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From nim at fedoraproject.org Mon Dec 15 22:19:16 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:19:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/fontpackages/devel fontpackages.spec, NONE, 1.1 import.log, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081215221916.55DFB70124@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv5118/devel Modified Files: .cvsignore sources Added Files: fontpackages.spec import.log Log Message: initial import --- NEW FILE fontpackages.spec --- %define spectemplatedir %{_sysconfdir}/rpmdevtools/ %define rpmmacrodir %{_sysconfdir}/rpm/ Name: fontpackages Version: 1.11 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages Group: Development/System # Mostly means the scriptlets inserted via this package do not change the # license of the packages they're inserted in License: LGPLv3+ # Or git://git.fedorahosted.org/fontpackages.git URL: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fonts_SIG Source0: http://fedorahosted.org/releases/f/o/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 BuildArch: noarch BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) %description This package contains the basic directory layout, spec templates, rpm macros and other materials used to create font packages. %package filesystem Summary: Directories used by font packages Group: User Interface/X License: Public Domain %description filesystem This package contains the basic directory layout used by font packages, including the correct permissions for the directories. %package devel Summary: Templates and macros used to create font packages Group: User Interface/X Requires: rpmdevtools, %{name}-filesystem = %{version}-%{release} %description devel This package contains spec templates, rpm macros and other materials used to create font packages. %prep %setup -q %build %install rm -fr %{buildroot} # Pull macros out of macros.fonts and emulate them during install for dir in fontbasedir fontconfig_confdir fontconfig_templatedir ; do export _${dir}=$(rpm --eval $(%{__grep} -E "^%_${dir}\b" \ macros/macros.fonts | %{__awk} '{ print $2 }')) done install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}${_fontbasedir} \ %{buildroot}${_fontconfig_confdir} \ %{buildroot}${_fontconfig_templatedir} \ %{buildroot}%{spectemplatedir} \ %{buildroot}%{rpmmacrodir} install -m 0644 -p spec-templates/*.spec %{buildroot}%{spectemplatedir} install -m 0644 -p macros/macros* %{buildroot}%{rpmmacrodir} cat < %{name}-%{version}.files %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %dir ${_fontbasedir} %dir ${_fontconfig_confdir} %dir ${_fontconfig_templatedir} EOF %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} %files filesystem -f %{name}-%{version}.files %files devel %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc license.txt readme.txt fontconfig-templates/ %config(noreplace) %{spectemplatedir}/*.spec %config(noreplace) %{rpmmacrodir}/macros* %changelog * Wed Dec 10 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.11-1 ??? Add actual fedorahosted references * Sun Nov 23 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.10-1 ??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? * Fri Nov 14 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.9-1 ??? fix and complete fontconfig doc * Fri Nov 14 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.8-1 ??? simplify multi spec template: codify general case - 1.7-1 ??? split fontconfig template documentation is separate files - 1.6-1 ??? simplify spec templates - 1.5-1 ??? use ".conf" extension for fontconfig templates - 1.4-1 ??? small multi spec template fix * Wed Nov 12 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.3-1 ??? remove trailing slashes in directory macros * Tue Nov 11 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.2-1 ??? add fontconfig templates ??? fix a few typos * Mon Nov 10 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.0-1 ??? initial release --- NEW FILE import.log --- fontpackages-1_11-1_fc11:HEAD:fontpackages-1.11-1.fc11.src.rpm:1229379496 Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- .cvsignore 15 Dec 2008 20:18:02 -0000 1.1 +++ .cvsignore 15 Dec 2008 22:18:45 -0000 1.2 @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +fontpackages-1.11.tar.bz2 Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel/sources,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- sources 15 Dec 2008 20:18:02 -0000 1.1 +++ sources 15 Dec 2008 22:18:45 -0000 1.2 @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +362046a39434fe95ea9c9ab4ea4880ba fontpackages-1.11.tar.bz2 From nim at fedoraproject.org Mon Dec 15 22:21:06 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:21:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/fontpackages/F-10 fontpackages.spec, NONE, 1.1 import.log, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081215222106.42AEC70124@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/F-10 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv6024/F-10 Modified Files: .cvsignore sources Added Files: fontpackages.spec import.log Log Message: initial import --- NEW FILE fontpackages.spec --- %define spectemplatedir %{_sysconfdir}/rpmdevtools/ %define rpmmacrodir %{_sysconfdir}/rpm/ Name: fontpackages Version: 1.11 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages Group: Development/System # Mostly means the scriptlets inserted via this package do not change the # license of the packages they're inserted in License: LGPLv3+ # Or git://git.fedorahosted.org/fontpackages.git URL: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fonts_SIG Source0: http://fedorahosted.org/releases/f/o/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 BuildArch: noarch BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) %description This package contains the basic directory layout, spec templates, rpm macros and other materials used to create font packages. %package filesystem Summary: Directories used by font packages Group: User Interface/X License: Public Domain %description filesystem This package contains the basic directory layout used by font packages, including the correct permissions for the directories. %package devel Summary: Templates and macros used to create font packages Group: User Interface/X Requires: rpmdevtools, %{name}-filesystem = %{version}-%{release} %description devel This package contains spec templates, rpm macros and other materials used to create font packages. %prep %setup -q %build %install rm -fr %{buildroot} # Pull macros out of macros.fonts and emulate them during install for dir in fontbasedir fontconfig_confdir fontconfig_templatedir ; do export _${dir}=$(rpm --eval $(%{__grep} -E "^%_${dir}\b" \ macros/macros.fonts | %{__awk} '{ print $2 }')) done install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}${_fontbasedir} \ %{buildroot}${_fontconfig_confdir} \ %{buildroot}${_fontconfig_templatedir} \ %{buildroot}%{spectemplatedir} \ %{buildroot}%{rpmmacrodir} install -m 0644 -p spec-templates/*.spec %{buildroot}%{spectemplatedir} install -m 0644 -p macros/macros* %{buildroot}%{rpmmacrodir} cat < %{name}-%{version}.files %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %dir ${_fontbasedir} %dir ${_fontconfig_confdir} %dir ${_fontconfig_templatedir} EOF %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} %files filesystem -f %{name}-%{version}.files %files devel %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc license.txt readme.txt fontconfig-templates/ %config(noreplace) %{spectemplatedir}/*.spec %config(noreplace) %{rpmmacrodir}/macros* %changelog * Wed Dec 10 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.11-1 ??? Add actual fedorahosted references * Sun Nov 23 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.10-1 ??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? * Fri Nov 14 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.9-1 ??? fix and complete fontconfig doc * Fri Nov 14 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.8-1 ??? simplify multi spec template: codify general case - 1.7-1 ??? split fontconfig template documentation is separate files - 1.6-1 ??? simplify spec templates - 1.5-1 ??? use ".conf" extension for fontconfig templates - 1.4-1 ??? small multi spec template fix * Wed Nov 12 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.3-1 ??? remove trailing slashes in directory macros * Tue Nov 11 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.2-1 ??? add fontconfig templates ??? fix a few typos * Mon Nov 10 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.0-1 ??? initial release --- NEW FILE import.log --- fontpackages-1_11-1_fc11:F-10:fontpackages-1.11-1.fc11.src.rpm:1229379612 Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/F-10/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- .cvsignore 15 Dec 2008 20:18:02 -0000 1.1 +++ .cvsignore 15 Dec 2008 22:20:35 -0000 1.2 @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +fontpackages-1.11.tar.bz2 Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/F-10/sources,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- sources 15 Dec 2008 20:18:02 -0000 1.1 +++ sources 15 Dec 2008 22:20:35 -0000 1.2 @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +362046a39434fe95ea9c9ab4ea4880ba fontpackages-1.11.tar.bz2 From nim at fedoraproject.org Mon Dec 15 22:34:20 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:34:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/fontpackages/F-9 fontpackages.spec, NONE, 1.1 import.log, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081215223420.1336D70124@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/F-9 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv7435/F-9 Modified Files: .cvsignore sources Added Files: fontpackages.spec import.log Log Message: initial import --- NEW FILE fontpackages.spec --- %define spectemplatedir %{_sysconfdir}/rpmdevtools/ %define rpmmacrodir %{_sysconfdir}/rpm/ Name: fontpackages Version: 1.11 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages Group: Development/System # Mostly means the scriptlets inserted via this package do not change the # license of the packages they're inserted in License: LGPLv3+ # Or git://git.fedorahosted.org/fontpackages.git URL: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fonts_SIG Source0: http://fedorahosted.org/releases/f/o/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 BuildArch: noarch BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) %description This package contains the basic directory layout, spec templates, rpm macros and other materials used to create font packages. %package filesystem Summary: Directories used by font packages Group: User Interface/X License: Public Domain %description filesystem This package contains the basic directory layout used by font packages, including the correct permissions for the directories. %package devel Summary: Templates and macros used to create font packages Group: User Interface/X Requires: rpmdevtools, %{name}-filesystem = %{version}-%{release} %description devel This package contains spec templates, rpm macros and other materials used to create font packages. %prep %setup -q %build %install rm -fr %{buildroot} # Pull macros out of macros.fonts and emulate them during install for dir in fontbasedir fontconfig_confdir fontconfig_templatedir ; do export _${dir}=$(rpm --eval $(%{__grep} -E "^%_${dir}\b" \ macros/macros.fonts | %{__awk} '{ print $2 }')) done install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}${_fontbasedir} \ %{buildroot}${_fontconfig_confdir} \ %{buildroot}${_fontconfig_templatedir} \ %{buildroot}%{spectemplatedir} \ %{buildroot}%{rpmmacrodir} install -m 0644 -p spec-templates/*.spec %{buildroot}%{spectemplatedir} install -m 0644 -p macros/macros* %{buildroot}%{rpmmacrodir} cat < %{name}-%{version}.files %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %dir ${_fontbasedir} %dir ${_fontconfig_confdir} %dir ${_fontconfig_templatedir} EOF %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} %files filesystem -f %{name}-%{version}.files %files devel %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc license.txt readme.txt fontconfig-templates/ %config(noreplace) %{spectemplatedir}/*.spec %config(noreplace) %{rpmmacrodir}/macros* %changelog * Wed Dec 10 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.11-1 ??? Add actual fedorahosted references * Sun Nov 23 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.10-1 ??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? * Fri Nov 14 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.9-1 ??? fix and complete fontconfig doc * Fri Nov 14 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.8-1 ??? simplify multi spec template: codify general case - 1.7-1 ??? split fontconfig template documentation is separate files - 1.6-1 ??? simplify spec templates - 1.5-1 ??? use ".conf" extension for fontconfig templates - 1.4-1 ??? small multi spec template fix * Wed Nov 12 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.3-1 ??? remove trailing slashes in directory macros * Tue Nov 11 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.2-1 ??? add fontconfig templates ??? fix a few typos * Mon Nov 10 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.0-1 ??? initial release --- NEW FILE import.log --- fontpackages-1_11-1_fc11:F-9:fontpackages-1.11-1.fc11.src.rpm:1229380405 Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/F-9/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- .cvsignore 15 Dec 2008 20:18:02 -0000 1.1 +++ .cvsignore 15 Dec 2008 22:33:49 -0000 1.2 @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +fontpackages-1.11.tar.bz2 Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/F-9/sources,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- sources 15 Dec 2008 20:18:02 -0000 1.1 +++ sources 15 Dec 2008 22:33:49 -0000 1.2 @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +362046a39434fe95ea9c9ab4ea4880ba fontpackages-1.11.tar.bz2 From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 16 07:00:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:00:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812160700.mBG70c1L026421@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #66 from Kevin Kofler 2008-12-16 02:00:37 EDT --- The updates for F8, F9 and F10 should all be in stable after the push which is currently ongoing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From mclasen at fedoraproject.org Tue Dec 16 07:27:32 2008 From: mclasen at fedoraproject.org (Matthias Clasen) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:27:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/pango/devel .cvsignore, 1.82, 1.83 pango.spec, 1.150, 1.151 sources, 1.83, 1.84 Message-ID: <20081216072732.B96BA7012B@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: mclasen Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/pango/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv26549 Modified Files: .cvsignore pango.spec sources Log Message: 1.22.4 Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/pango/devel/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.82 retrieving revision 1.83 diff -u -r1.82 -r1.83 --- .cvsignore 12 Nov 2008 06:59:43 -0000 1.82 +++ .cvsignore 16 Dec 2008 07:27:02 -0000 1.83 @@ -1 +1 @@ -pango-1.22.2.tar.bz2 +pango-1.22.4.tar.bz2 Index: pango.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/pango/devel/pango.spec,v retrieving revision 1.150 retrieving revision 1.151 diff -u -r1.150 -r1.151 --- pango.spec 7 Dec 2008 04:27:21 -0000 1.150 +++ pango.spec 16 Dec 2008 07:27:02 -0000 1.151 @@ -8,8 +8,8 @@ Summary: System for layout and rendering of internationalized text Name: pango -Version: 1.22.3 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Version: 1.22.4 +Release: 1%{?dist} License: LGPLv2+ Group: System Environment/Libraries Source: http://download.gnome.org/sources/pango/1.22/pango-%{version}.tar.bz2 @@ -224,11 +224,14 @@ %changelog +* Tue Dec 16 2008 Matthias Clasen - 1.22.4-1 +- Update to 1.22.4 + * Sun Dec 7 2008 Mamoru Tasaka - 1.22.3-2 - Rebuild for pkgconfig provides * Mon Nov 24 2008 Matthias Clasen - 1.22.3-1 -- U[date to 1.22.3 +- Update to 1.22.3 * Wed Nov 12 2008 Matthias Clasen - 1.22.2-1 - Update to 1.22.2 Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/pango/devel/sources,v retrieving revision 1.83 retrieving revision 1.84 diff -u -r1.83 -r1.84 --- sources 25 Nov 2008 03:40:42 -0000 1.83 +++ sources 16 Dec 2008 07:27:02 -0000 1.84 @@ -1 +1 @@ -8909ddbde2f2e91eb0c79202e1051a84 pango-1.22.3.tar.bz2 +7c3f3748052799746d73c6d3a0cc1205 pango-1.22.4.tar.bz2 From goranrakic at openoffice.org Tue Dec 16 14:35:38 2008 From: goranrakic at openoffice.org (goranrakic at openoffice.org) Date: 16 Dec 2008 14:35:38 -0000 Subject: [Issue 16032] OOo should support optional OpenType features In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081216143538.17156.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=16032 ------- Additional comments from goranrakic at openoffice.org Tue Dec 16 14:35:33 +0000 2008 ------- Is 'calt' what is required to support language based glyphs selections? This feature is required for writing Serbian Cyrillic as most TTF fonts contain only Russian glyphs. There is an example on pango.org: http://www.pango.org/ScriptGallery?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=OpenTypeLanguage.png --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From nmailhot at openoffice.org Tue Dec 16 15:29:48 2008 From: nmailhot at openoffice.org (nmailhot at openoffice.org) Date: 16 Dec 2008 15:29:48 -0000 Subject: [Issue 16032] OOo should support optional OpenType features In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081216152948.20019.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=16032 ------- Additional comments from nmailhot at openoffice.org Tue Dec 16 15:29:44 +0000 2008 ------- For this part you need locl not calt http://www.typotheque.com/fonts/opentype_features --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From goranrakic at openoffice.org Tue Dec 16 15:48:31 2008 From: goranrakic at openoffice.org (goranrakic at openoffice.org) Date: 16 Dec 2008 15:48:31 -0000 Subject: [Issue 78749] some Latin text needs CTL processing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081216154831.28807.qmail@openoffice.org> To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=78749 ------- Additional comments from goranrakic at openoffice.org Tue Dec 16 15:48:29 +0000 2008 ------- "locl" is required for Serbian. There is an example of this on pango.org: http://www.pango.org/ScriptGallery?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=OpenTypeLanguage.png --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 16 22:05:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:05:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 466369] font rendering is messed up after 20081007 changes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812162205.mBGM5KcS032361@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466369 Matej Cepl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mcepl at redhat.com Flag| |needinfo?(michal at harddata.c | |om) --- Comment #34 from Matej Cepl 2008-12-16 17:05:17 EDT --- Reporter, please attach your X server config file (/etc/X11/xorg.conf, if available) and X server log file (/var/log/Xorg.*.log) to the bug report as individual uncompressed file attachments using the bugzilla file attachment link below. We will review this issue again once you've had a chance to attach this information. Thanks in advance. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From kevin at fedoraproject.org Tue Dec 16 22:13:12 2008 From: kevin at fedoraproject.org (Kevin Fenzi) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:13:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/fontforge/devel fontforge-20081215-pangocairo.patch, NONE, 1.1 sources, 1.22, 1.23 .cvsignore, 1.22, 1.23 fontforge.spec, 1.37, 1.38 Message-ID: <20081216221312.BBB1570127@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: kevin Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/fontforge/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv21535 Modified Files: sources .cvsignore fontforge.spec Added Files: fontforge-20081215-pangocairo.patch Log Message: Upgrade to 20081215 Build with cairo and pango fontforge-20081215-pangocairo.patch: --- NEW FILE fontforge-20081215-pangocairo.patch --- diff -Nur fontforge-20081215.orig/gdraw/gxcdraw.c fontforge-20081215/gdraw/gxcdraw.c --- fontforge-20081215.orig/gdraw/gxcdraw.c 2008-11-17 09:19:44.000000000 -0700 +++ fontforge-20081215/gdraw/gxcdraw.c 2008-12-16 13:59:58.000000000 -0700 @@ -1782,9 +1782,10 @@ # if !defined(_NO_LIBCAIRO) && PANGO_VERSION_MINOR>=10 # include # define _pango_cairo_layout_path pango_cairo_layout_path -# define _pango_font_map_create_context pango_font_map_create_context +# define _pango_cairo_font_map_create_context pango_cairo_font_map_create_context # define _pango_cairo_font_map_get_default pango_cairo_font_map_get_default -# define _pango_cairo_context_set_resolution _pango_cairo_context_set_resolution +# define _pango_cairo_context_set_resolution pango_cairo_context_set_resolution +# define _pango_cairo_show_glyph_string pango_cairo_show_glyph_string # endif # undef GTimer # if PANGO_VERSION_MINOR>=8 Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontforge/devel/sources,v retrieving revision 1.22 retrieving revision 1.23 diff -u -r1.22 -r1.23 --- sources 8 Nov 2008 10:52:34 -0000 1.22 +++ sources 16 Dec 2008 22:12:42 -0000 1.23 @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ -8866595d4dac77c0c093ed1e104515d3 fontforge_full-20080927.tar.bz2 -cc3e292e75250e8318cb098c1552c98e fontforge_htdocs-20080927.tar.bz2 +fdbca231134755fd0cf20572d955855f fontforge_full-20081215.tar.bz2 +f41861cdef84e282da5a765f644582e8 fontforge_htdocs-20081215.tar.bz2 Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontforge/devel/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.22 retrieving revision 1.23 diff -u -r1.22 -r1.23 --- .cvsignore 8 Nov 2008 10:52:34 -0000 1.22 +++ .cvsignore 16 Dec 2008 22:12:42 -0000 1.23 @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ -fontforge_full-20080927.tar.bz2 -fontforge_htdocs-20080927.tar.bz2 +fontforge_full-20081215.tar.bz2 +fontforge_htdocs-20081215.tar.bz2 Index: fontforge.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontforge/devel/fontforge.spec,v retrieving revision 1.37 retrieving revision 1.38 diff -u -r1.37 -r1.38 --- fontforge.spec 1 Dec 2008 15:00:24 -0000 1.37 +++ fontforge.spec 16 Dec 2008 22:12:42 -0000 1.38 @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ -%define docs_version 20080927 +%define docs_version 20081215 %define gettext_package FontForge Name: fontforge -Version: 20080927 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Version: 20081215 +Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Outline and bitmap font editor Group: Applications/Publishing @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ Source1: fontforge.desktop Source2: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/fontforge/fontforge_htdocs-%{docs_version}.tar.bz2 Source3: fontforge.xml +Patch1: fontforge-20081215-pangocairo.patch BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Requires: xdg-utils @@ -29,6 +30,8 @@ BuildRequires: libXt-devel BuildRequires: xorg-x11-proto-devel BuildRequires: gettext +BuildRequires: pango-devel +BuildRequires: cairo-devel %description @@ -50,6 +53,8 @@ %prep %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} +%patch1 -p1 + mkdir htdocs tar xjf %{SOURCE2} -C htdocs rm -rf htdocs/scripts @@ -63,7 +68,7 @@ %{__sed} -i 's/\r//' htdocs/corpchar.txt %build -%configure --with-freetype-bytecode=no +%configure --with-freetype-bytecode=no --with-regular-link sed -i 's|^hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=.*|hardcode_libdir_flag_spec=""|g' libtool sed -i 's|^runpath_var=LD_RUN_PATH|runpath_var=DIE_RPATH_DIE|g' libtool @@ -134,6 +139,13 @@ %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*.pc %changelog +* Tue Dec 16 2008 Kevin Fenzi - 20081215-1 +- Upgrade to 20081215 +- Build with cairo and pango + +* Mon Dec 01 2008 Kevin Fenzi - 20081117-1 +- Upgrade to 20081117 + * Mon Dec 01 2008 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams - 20080927-2 - Rebuild for Python 2.6 From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 16 23:11:54 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:11:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 471542] Build fontforge with cairo, pango and spiro support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812162311.mBGNBsin029588@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471542 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-16 18:11:53 EDT --- I have just built a new version with cairo/pango support. I just submitted a libspiro package for review. See bug 476758 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 16 23:13:18 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:13:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476758] Review Request: libspiro - Library to simplify the drawing of beautiful curves In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812162313.mBGNDIAX029742@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476758 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 16 23:14:32 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:14:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476720] Beteckna fonts package for review. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812162314.mBGNEWiJ012226@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476720 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 16 23:19:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:19:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472637] libpng.so: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directo In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812162319.mBGNJo8V031536@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472637 Kevin Fenzi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-16 18:19:49 EDT --- The 20081215 version I just built in rawhide should have this corrected. Closing this now. Feel free to reopen this or file a new one if you spot anything. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 16 23:19:01 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:19:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 458592] Incorrect glyph points and missing hinting instructions for U+0079, U+03BC, U+0431, U+2010..2012. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812162319.mBGNJ1aL013097@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458592 Bug 458592 depends on bug 459451, which changed state. Bug 459451 Summary: Changes in glyph point settings window could not be applied. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459451 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 16 23:19:00 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:19:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 459451] Changes in glyph point settings window could not be applied. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812162319.mBGNJ0ct013063@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459451 Kevin Fenzi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Flag|needinfo?(cchance at redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-16 18:18:59 EDT --- This seems already applied upstream, I am gonna go ahead and close this now. If you spot any problems with it, feel free to reopen or file a new bug. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 16 23:22:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:22:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 462038] Hotkeys has no response and "Go To" window couldn't be inputted. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812162322.mBGNMkOm014004@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462038 Bug Zapper changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |10 --- Comment #7 from Bug Zapper 2008-11-25 22:03:26 EDT --- This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle. Changing version to '10'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-16 18:22:45 EDT --- Caius: Can you confirm it's SCIM causing this issue? Also, can you try the 20081215 version I just built in rawhide? Where should we go from here with this bug? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 16 23:33:15 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:33:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812162333.mBGNXFnu002706@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476720 Jason Tibbitts changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |beteckna-sfd-fonts.spec - |beteckna-sfd-fonts - |Beteckna fonts |Beteckna fonts -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 16 23:32:52 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:32:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts.spec - Beteckna fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812162332.mBGNWqI1002613@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476720 Jason Tibbitts changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 Summary|Beteckna fonts package for |Review Request: |review. |beteckna-sfd-fonts.spec - | |Beteckna fonts --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts 2008-12-16 18:32:51 EDT --- We have scripts which parse these review requests, so it is much better if you follow the submission instructions at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 17 00:50:07 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:50:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 462038] Hotkeys has no response and "Go To" window couldn't be inputted. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812170050.mBH0o7l7029748@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462038 --- Comment #9 from Caius CHANCE 2008-12-16 19:50:06 EDT --- I've turned SCIM off on F10 and prob still exists. I don't have rawhide on hand atm so need to prep that before triage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.gnome.org Wed Dec 17 05:49:57 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.gnome.org (pango (bugzilla.gnome.org)) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:49:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Bug 347237] Making Pango use a given cairo_font_face_t In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081217054958.02D6323F521@label.gnome.org> If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=347237 pango | general | Ver: unspecified Karl Tomlinson changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bugs.gnome at karlt.net -- See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone if you are having problems with the system. You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=347237. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Wed Dec 17 06:06:45 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:06:45 -0800 Subject: [Bug 378927] [meta] tracking bug for issues with pixel scaling at high dpis (resolutions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812170606.mBH66jVM001610@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=378927 Atsushi Sakai changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |469933 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 17 06:29:02 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:29:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476758] Review Request: libspiro - Library to simplify the drawing of beautiful curves In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812170629.mBH6T2gC005197@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476758 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |orcanbahri at yahoo.com AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |orcanbahri at yahoo.com Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2008-12-17 01:29:02 EDT --- Well, there is not much to complain about. The package is in very good condition. Just two tiny remarks: * rpmlint says: libspiro-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation At the least the license file can go in the %doc of this subpackage. I also think that the README* files would suit the devel subpackage better. * I suggest you to make use of the %{name} and %{version} macros. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 17 06:35:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:35:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476758] Review Request: libspiro - Library to simplify the drawing of beautiful curves In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812170635.mBH6ZOap017659@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476758 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2008-12-17 01:35:23 EDT --- Well, you can do these changes before you commit. No need to recycle the review process since these are very minor issues. ------------------------------------------- This package (libspiro) is APPROVED by oget ------------------------------------------- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 17 06:45:16 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 01:45:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 468565] Checkbox won't select on fillable PDF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812170645.mBH6jG2m007724@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468565 Bug Zapper changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |10 --- Comment #2 from Bug Zapper 2008-11-25 23:14:50 EDT --- This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle. Changing version to '10'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping --- Comment #3 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-17 01:45:15 EDT --- Filed upstream: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19128 Will get it in the fontconfig tree I'm working on. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 17 07:00:45 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:00:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475743] Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812170700.mBH70jqQ010412@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475743 Behdad Esfahbod changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(besfahbo at redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #11 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-17 02:00:44 EDT --- I had an idea but I tested quickly and it didn't work. I'll think about it again. I have some other ideas about how to fix the CJK issues in fontconfig. I'm currently working on fontconfig. I'll see if I get to those. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 17 16:32:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:32:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 463036] LiberationSans-Bold 'u' and 'W' blurred in smaller sizes. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812171632.mBHGWhV0003181@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463036 Felix Kaechele changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |felix at fetzig.org Flag|needinfo?(saurabh at hotmail.c | |om) | --- Comment #8 from Felix Kaechele 2008-12-17 11:32:41 EDT --- Could this please be reopened? I started having this issue after the I installed the update mentioned by the Bodhi bot. I attached a screenshot for reference. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 17 16:33:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:33:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 463036] LiberationSans-Bold 'u' and 'W' blurred in smaller sizes. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812171633.mBHGXQav013231@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=463036 --- Comment #9 from Felix Kaechele 2008-12-17 11:33:25 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=327266) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=327266) Screenshot for reference -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 17 18:59:15 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:59:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812171859.mBHIxFJI032417@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-17 13:59:14 EDT --- fontpackages-1.11-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fontpackages-1.11-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 17 19:00:17 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:00:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812171900.mBHJ0HnR011302@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-17 14:00:16 EDT --- fontpackages-1.11-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fontpackages-1.11-1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:09:09 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:09:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/andika-fonts/devel andika-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.1, 1.2 andika-fonts.spec, 1.1, 1.2 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217190909.0EB6D700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/andika-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv10217/devel Modified Files: andika-fonts-fontconfig.conf andika-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: andika-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/andika-fonts/devel/andika-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- andika-fonts-fontconfig.conf 13 Jul 2008 20:24:58 -0000 1.1 +++ andika-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:08:38 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - Andika - - sans-serif - - - sans-serif Andika + + Andika + + sans-serif + + Index: andika-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/andika-fonts/devel/andika-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- andika-fonts.spec 13 Jul 2008 20:24:58 -0000 1.1 +++ andika-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:08:38 -0000 1.2 @@ -1,25 +1,26 @@ -%define fontname andika -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname andika +%define fontconf 60-%{fontname}.conf # Someday SIL will release sanely named archives %define archivename AndikaBasicR_10 Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 1.0 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} Summary: A font for literacy and beginning readers -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://scripts.sil.org/Andika +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://scripts.sil.org/Andika # Actual download URL # http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/render_download.php?site_id=nrsi&format=file&media_id=%{archivename}&filename=%{archivename}.zip -Source0: %{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Source0: %{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description Andika is a sans serif, Unicode-compliant font designed especially for @@ -53,45 +54,40 @@ %build -# Source format not available %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.ttf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.ttf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.ttf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir} -%{fontdir}/*.ttf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 1.0-3 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 1.0-2 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Tue Jun 24 2008 - 1.0-1 ??? Initial packaging Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/andika-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 13 Jul 2008 20:24:58 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:08:38 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ andika-fonts-1_0-1_fc10:HEAD:andika-fonts-1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm:1215980688 +andika-fonts-1_0-3_fc11:HEAD:andika-fonts-1.0-3.fc11.src.rpm:1229540895 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:13:55 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:13:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/apanov-heuristica-fonts/devel apanov-heuristica-fonts.spec, 1.1, 1.2 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217191355.1AAFC700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/apanov-heuristica-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv11230/devel Modified Files: apanov-heuristica-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: apanov-heuristica-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/apanov-heuristica-fonts/devel/apanov-heuristica-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- apanov-heuristica-fonts.spec 16 Nov 2008 21:40:37 -0000 1.1 +++ apanov-heuristica-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:13:24 -0000 1.2 @@ -1,23 +1,24 @@ -%define fontname apanov-heuristica -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname apanov-heuristica +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename heuristica-src-%{version} Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20081109 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} Summary: Heuristica font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: ftp://ftp.dvo.ru/pub/Font/%{fontname}/ -Source0: %{url}%{archivename}.tar.bz2 -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: ftp://ftp.dvo.ru/pub/Font/%{fontname}/ +Source0: %{url}%{archivename}.tar.bz2 +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf +BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) BuildArch: noarch BuildRequires: fontforge +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description Heuristica is a serif latin & cyrillic font, derived from the "Adobe Utopia??" @@ -35,41 +36,36 @@ %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p Heuristica-*.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} + +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir} -%{fontdir}/Heuristica-*.otf +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20081109-3 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + * Sun Nov 16 2008 +- 20081109-2 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? - 20081109-1 ??? Fedora import Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/apanov-heuristica-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 16 Nov 2008 21:40:37 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:13:24 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ apanov-heuristica-fonts-20081109-1_fc11:HEAD:apanov-heuristica-fonts-20081109-1.fc11.src.rpm:1226871596 +apanov-heuristica-fonts-20081109-3_fc11:HEAD:apanov-heuristica-fonts-20081109-3.fc11.src.rpm:1229540973 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:15:49 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:15:49 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/bitstream-vera-fonts/devel import.log, NONE, 1.1 bitstream-vera-fonts.spec, 1.9, 1.10 Message-ID: <20081217191549.8BA3F700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/bitstream-vera-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv11823/devel Modified Files: bitstream-vera-fonts.spec Added Files: import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines --- NEW FILE import.log --- bitstream-vera-fonts-1_10-12_fc11:HEAD:bitstream-vera-fonts-1.10-12.fc11.src.rpm:1229541266 Index: bitstream-vera-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/bitstream-vera-fonts/devel/bitstream-vera-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.9 retrieving revision 1.10 diff -u -r1.9 -r1.10 --- bitstream-vera-fonts.spec 10 Aug 2007 20:50:54 -0000 1.9 +++ bitstream-vera-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:15:19 -0000 1.10 @@ -1,22 +1,92 @@ -%define archivename ttf-bitstream-vera -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/bitstream-vera +%define fontname bitstream-vera +%define archivename ttf-bitstream-vera + +%define common_desc \ +The Vera fonts are high-quality Latin fonts donated by Bitstream. \ +These fonts have been released under a liberal license, see the \ +licensing FAQ in COPYRIGHT.TXT or the online up-to-date version \ +at %{url} for details. + +Name: %{fontname}-fonts +Version: 1.10 +Release: 12%{?dist} +Summary: Bitstream Vera fonts -Name: bitstream-vera-fonts -Version: 1.10 -Release: 8 -Summary: Bitstream Vera Fonts Group: User Interface/X License: Bitstream Vera URL: http://www.gnome.org/fonts/ Source: ftp://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/%{archivename}/%{version}/%{archivename}-%{version}.tar.bz2 -BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot -BuildArch: noarch +BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel %description -The Vera fonts are high-quality Latin fonts donated by Bitstream. -These fonts have been released under a liberal license, see the -licensing FAQ in COPYRIGHT.TXT or the online up-to-date version -at %{url} for details. +%common_desc + + +%package compat +Summary: Bitstream Vera, compatibility +Group: User Interface/X + +Obsoletes: bitstream-vera-fonts < 1.10-9 +Requires: %{name}-sans, %{name}-serif, %{name}-sans-mono + +%description compat +This package only exists to help transition pre 1.10-9 Bitstream Vera users to +the new package split. It will be removed after one distribution release cycle, +please do not reference it or depend on it in any way. + + +%package common +Summary: Bitstream Vera, common files (documentation???) +Group: User Interface/X +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem + +%description common +%common_desc + +This package consists of files used by other %{name} packages. + + +%package sans +Summary: Bitstream Vera, variable-width sans-serif font faces +Group: User Interface/X +Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} + +%description sans +%common_desc + +This package consists of the Bitstream Vera sans-serif variable-width font +faces. + +%_font_pkg -n sans Vera.ttf VeraBd.ttf VeraIt.ttf VeraBI.ttf + + +%package serif +Summary: Bitstream Vera, variable-width serif font faces +Group: User Interface/X +Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} + +%description serif +%common_desc + +This package consists of the Bitstream Vera serif variable-width font faces. + +%_font_pkg -n serif VeraSe*ttf + + +%package sans-mono +Summary: Bitstream Vera, monospace sans-serif font faces +Group: User Interface/X +Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} + +%description sans-mono +%common_desc + +This package consists of the Bitstream Vera sans-serif monospace font faces. + +%_font_pkg -n sans-mono VeraMo*ttf %prep @@ -25,38 +95,35 @@ %build %install -/bin/rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT +rm -fr %{buildroot} -#fonts -install -d -m 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 *.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.ttf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} %clean -/bin/rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT +rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts -fi +%files compat -%postun -if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then - if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts - fi -fi - -%files +%files common %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.TXT -%dir %{fontdir} -%{fontdir}/*.ttf + +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 1.10-12 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 1.10-11 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Aug 10 2007 Matthias Clasen - 1.10-8 - Update license field - Shorten description line From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:17:07 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:17:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/charis-fonts/devel charis-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.3, 1.4 charis-fonts.spec, 1.10, 1.11 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217191707.E306C700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/charis-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv12316/devel Modified Files: charis-fonts-fontconfig.conf charis-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: charis-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/charis-fonts/devel/charis-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- charis-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 19:55:56 -0000 1.3 +++ charis-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:16:37 -0000 1.4 @@ -1,6 +1,18 @@ + + serif + + Charis SIL + + + + Charis SIL + + serif + + Bitstream Charter @@ -13,16 +25,4 @@ Charis SIL - - Charis SIL - - serif - - - - serif - - Charis SIL - - Index: charis-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/charis-fonts/devel/charis-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.10 retrieving revision 1.11 diff -u -r1.10 -r1.11 --- charis-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 19:55:56 -0000 1.10 +++ charis-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:16:37 -0000 1.11 @@ -1,24 +1,25 @@ -%define fontname charis -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname charis +%define fontconf 60-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename CharisSIL Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 4.104 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Release: 4%{?dist} Summary: Charis SIL fonts -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://scripts.sil.org/CharisSILFont +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://scripts.sil.org/CharisSILFont # Actual download URL # http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/render_download.php?site_id=nrsi&format=file&media_id=%{archivename}.zip&filename=%{archivename}%{version}.zip -Source0: %{archivename}%{version}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Source0: %{archivename}%{version}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description Charis SIL provides glyphs for a wide range of Latin and Cyrillic characters. @@ -41,46 +42,42 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.ttf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.ttf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.ttf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.ttf +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 4.104-4 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 4.104-3 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 - 4.104-2 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/charis-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 19:55:56 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:16:37 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ charis-fonts-4_104-2_fc10:HEAD:charis-fonts-4.104-2.fc10.src.rpm:1215806033 +charis-fonts-4_104-4_fc11:HEAD:charis-fonts-4.104-4.fc11.src.rpm:1229541374 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:22:05 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:22:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/ecolier-court-fonts/devel ecolier-court-fonts-lignes-fontconfig.conf, NONE, 1.1 ecolier-court-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.1, 1.2 ecolier-court-fonts.spec, 1.1, 1.2 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217192205.36263700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/ecolier-court-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv13435/devel Modified Files: ecolier-court-fonts-fontconfig.conf ecolier-court-fonts.spec import.log Added Files: ecolier-court-fonts-lignes-fontconfig.conf Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines --- NEW FILE ecolier-court-fonts-lignes-fontconfig.conf --- fantasy Ecolier_lignes_court Ecolier_lignes_court fantasy Index: ecolier-court-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/ecolier-court-fonts/devel/ecolier-court-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- ecolier-court-fonts-fontconfig.conf 19 Jul 2008 16:38:06 -0000 1.1 +++ ecolier-court-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:21:34 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,27 +2,15 @@ - Ecolier_court - - cursive - - - cursive Ecolier_court - Ecolier_lignes_court + Ecolier_court - fantasy + cursive - - fantasy - - Ecolier_lignes_court - - Index: ecolier-court-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/ecolier-court-fonts/devel/ecolier-court-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- ecolier-court-fonts.spec 19 Jul 2008 16:38:06 -0000 1.1 +++ ecolier-court-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:21:34 -0000 1.2 @@ -1,31 +1,64 @@ -%define fontname ecolier-court -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname ecolier-court +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname} + +%define common_desc\ +??colier are a set of Latin fonts created by Jean-Marie Douteau to mimic the \ +traditional cursive writing French children are taught in school. \ +\ +He kindly released two of them under the OFL, which are redistributed in \ +this package. + Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20070702 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 4%{?dist} Summary: ??colier court cursive fonts -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://perso.orange.fr/jm.douteau/page_ecolier.htm +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://perso.orange.fr/jm.douteau/page_ecolier.htm # The author links to third-party licence documents not included there -Source0: http://perso.orange.fr/jm.douteau/polices/ecl_cour.ttf -Source1: http://perso.orange.fr/jm.douteau/polices/ec_cour.ttf -Source2: http://perso.orange.fr/jm.douteau/polices/lisez_moi.txt -Source3: README-Fedora.txt -Source4: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Source0: http://perso.orange.fr/jm.douteau/polices/ecl_cour.ttf +Source1: http://perso.orange.fr/jm.douteau/polices/ec_cour.ttf +Source2: http://perso.orange.fr/jm.douteau/polices/lisez_moi.txt +Source3: README-Fedora.txt +Source4: %{name}-fontconfig.conf +Source5: %{name}-lignes-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} %description -??colier are a set of Latin fonts created by Jean-Marie Douteau to mimic the -traditional cursive writing French children are taught in school. +%common_desc + +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf}-lignes.conf ecl_cour.ttf + + +%package common +Summary: ??colier court, common files (documentation???) +Group: User Interface/X +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem + +%description common +%common_desc + +This package consists of files used by other %{name} packages. + -He kindly released two of them under the OFL, which are redistributed in this -package. +%package lignes +Summary: ??colier lignes court fantasy font +Group: User Interface/X +Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} + +%description lignes +%common_desc + +The ?? lignes ?? (lines) font variant includes the Seyes lining commonly used by +schoolchildren notepads. + +%_font_pkg -n lignes -f %{fontconf}.conf ec_cour.ttf %prep @@ -42,46 +75,48 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE0} %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE0} %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE4} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE4} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE5} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}-lignes.conf + +for fontconf in %{fontconf}.conf \ + %{fontconf}-lignes.conf ; do + ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/$fontconf \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/$fontconf +done %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%files +%files common %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.ttf +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20070702-4 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20070702-3 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Sat Jul 19 2008 - 20070702-1 ??? Stop waitting for upstream to answer distribution change requests Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/ecolier-court-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 19 Jul 2008 16:38:06 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:21:34 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ ecolier-court-fonts-20070702-1_fc10:HEAD:ecolier-court-fonts-20070702-1.fc10.src.rpm:1216485467 +ecolier-court-fonts-20070702-4_fc11:HEAD:ecolier-court-fonts-20070702-4.fc11.src.rpm:1229541673 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:24:14 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:24:14 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/edrip-fonts/devel .cvsignore, 1.8, 1.9 edrip-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.3, 1.4 edrip-fonts.spec, 1.12, 1.13 import.log, 1.4, 1.5 sources, 1.8, 1.9 Message-ID: <20081217192415.07A1C700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/edrip-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv14020/devel Modified Files: .cvsignore edrip-fonts-fontconfig.conf edrip-fonts.spec import.log sources Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/edrip-fonts/devel/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.8 retrieving revision 1.9 diff -u -r1.8 -r1.9 --- .cvsignore 1 Sep 2008 15:35:26 -0000 1.8 +++ .cvsignore 17 Dec 2008 19:23:44 -0000 1.9 @@ -1 +1 @@ -edrip-src-20080826.tar.bz2 +edrip-src-20081007.tar.bz2 Index: edrip-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/edrip-fonts/devel/edrip-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- edrip-fonts-fontconfig.conf 4 Jun 2008 17:34:10 -0000 1.3 +++ edrip-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:23:44 -0000 1.4 @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@ - - Teams - + + fantasy + Edrip - + Edrip @@ -13,10 +13,10 @@ fantasy - - fantasy - + + Teams + Edrip - + Index: edrip-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/edrip-fonts/devel/edrip-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.12 retrieving revision 1.13 diff -u -r1.12 -r1.13 --- edrip-fonts.spec 3 Sep 2008 21:10:04 -0000 1.12 +++ edrip-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:23:44 -0000 1.13 @@ -1,27 +1,26 @@ -%define fontname edrip -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname edrip +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename %{fontname}-src-%{version} Name: %{fontname}-fonts -Version: 20080826 +Version: 20081007 Release: 2%{?dist} Summary: Edrip decorative font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: ftp://ftp.dvo.ru/pub/Font/%{fontname}/ -Source0: %{url}%{archivename}.tar.bz2 -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - -Patch0: edrip-fonts-license.patch - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: ftp://ftp.dvo.ru/pub/Font/%{fontname}/ +Source0: %{url}%{archivename}.tar.bz2 +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf +Patch0: edrip-fonts-license.patch BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch -BuildRequires: xgridfit >= 1.9 -BuildRequires: fontforge >= 20080429 +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +BuildRequires: xgridfit +BuildRequires: fontforge +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description Edrip font is a contrast sans-serif font. It is based on the Teams font @@ -40,41 +39,38 @@ %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p Edrip-*.ttf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.ttf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -# Would be higher prio if the coverage was more complete -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} + +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.ttf -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt README +%dir %{_fontdir} -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/Edrip-*.ttf +%changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20081007-2 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20081007-1 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? -%changelog * Wed Sep 3 2008 - 20080826-2 ??? Rebuild with pre-F10-freeze fontforge Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/edrip-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.4 retrieving revision 1.5 diff -u -r1.4 -r1.5 --- import.log 3 Sep 2008 21:10:04 -0000 1.4 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:23:44 -0000 1.5 @@ -2,3 +2,4 @@ edrip-fonts-20080717-1_fc10_nim:HEAD:edrip-fonts-20080717-1.fc10.nim.src.rpm:1216368564 edrip-fonts-20080826-1_fc10_nim:HEAD:edrip-fonts-20080826-1.fc10.nim.src.rpm:1220283093 edrip-fonts-20080826-2_fc10:HEAD:edrip-fonts-20080826-2.fc10.src.rpm:1220476184 +edrip-fonts-20081007-2_fc11:HEAD:edrip-fonts-20081007-2.fc11.src.rpm:1229541799 Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/edrip-fonts/devel/sources,v retrieving revision 1.8 retrieving revision 1.9 diff -u -r1.8 -r1.9 --- sources 1 Sep 2008 15:35:26 -0000 1.8 +++ sources 17 Dec 2008 19:23:44 -0000 1.9 @@ -1 +1 @@ -c085cb7a1d9b51f58e373caeeace158c edrip-src-20080826.tar.bz2 +b745af94b865df2b0c20fe72ff58b568 edrip-src-20081007.tar.bz2 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:25:55 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:25:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-ambrosia-fonts/devel gfs-ambrosia-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.1, 1.2 gfs-ambrosia-fonts.spec, 1.1, 1.2 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217192555.D01B6700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-ambrosia-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv14502/devel Modified Files: gfs-ambrosia-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-ambrosia-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-ambrosia-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-ambrosia-fonts/devel/gfs-ambrosia-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-ambrosia-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 19:25:21 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-ambrosia-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:25:25 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Ambrosia - - fantasy - - - fantasy GFS Ambrosia + + GFS Ambrosia + + fantasy + + Index: gfs-ambrosia-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-ambrosia-fonts/devel/gfs-ambrosia-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-ambrosia-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 19:25:21 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-ambrosia-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:25:25 -0000 1.2 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-ambrosia -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-ambrosia +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_AMBROSIA Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20080624 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} Summary: GFS Ambrosia majuscule Greek font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces_majuscules.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces_majuscules.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description As it is known, the Greek alphabet was used in majuscule form for over a @@ -52,46 +53,41 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20080624-3 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20080624-2 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Sun Jul 06 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 20080624-1 ?? initial packaging Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-ambrosia-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 19:25:21 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:25:25 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-ambrosia-fonts-20080624-1_fc10:HEAD:gfs-ambrosia-fonts-20080624-1.fc10.src.rpm:1215804309 +gfs-ambrosia-fonts-20080624-3_fc11:HEAD:gfs-ambrosia-fonts-20080624-3.fc11.src.rpm:1229541904 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:27:45 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:27:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-artemisia-fonts/devel gfs-artemisia-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.2, 1.3 gfs-artemisia-fonts.spec, 1.7, 1.8 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217192745.2D6F870130@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-artemisia-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv15486/devel Modified Files: gfs-artemisia-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-artemisia-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-artemisia-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-artemisia-fonts/devel/gfs-artemisia-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- gfs-artemisia-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:24:09 -0000 1.2 +++ gfs-artemisia-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:27:14 -0000 1.3 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Artemisia - - serif - - - serif GFS Artemisia + + GFS Artemisia + + serif + + Index: gfs-artemisia-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-artemisia-fonts/devel/gfs-artemisia-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.7 retrieving revision 1.8 diff -u -r1.7 -r1.8 --- gfs-artemisia-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 20:24:09 -0000 1.7 +++ gfs-artemisia-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:27:14 -0000 1.8 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-artemisia -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-artemisia +%define fontconf 60-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_ARTEMISIA_OT Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20070415 -Release: 7%{?dist} +Release: 9%{?dist} Summary: GFS Artemisia fonts -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces20th.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces20th.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description The type family GFS Artemisia was designed by the painter-engraver Takis @@ -41,46 +42,41 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20070415-9 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20070415-8 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 - 20070415-7 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-artemisia-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 20:24:09 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:27:14 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-artemisia-fonts-20070415-7_fc10:HEAD:gfs-artemisia-fonts-20070415-7.fc10.src.rpm:1215807827 +gfs-artemisia-fonts-20070415-9_fc11:HEAD:gfs-artemisia-fonts-20070415-9.fc11.src.rpm:1229542008 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:29:27 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:29:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-baskerville-fonts/devel gfs-baskerville-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.1, 1.2 gfs-baskerville-fonts.spec, 1.7, 1.8 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217192927.ACA0A70131@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-baskerville-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv16864/devel Modified Files: gfs-baskerville-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-baskerville-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-baskerville-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-baskerville-fonts/devel/gfs-baskerville-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-baskerville-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:28:42 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-baskerville-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:28:57 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Baskerville - - fantasy - - - fantasy GFS Baskerville + + GFS Baskerville + + fantasy + + Index: gfs-baskerville-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-baskerville-fonts/devel/gfs-baskerville-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.7 retrieving revision 1.8 diff -u -r1.7 -r1.8 --- gfs-baskerville-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 20:28:42 -0000 1.7 +++ gfs-baskerville-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:28:57 -0000 1.8 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-baskerville -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-baskerville +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_BASKERVILLE_OT Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20070327 -Release: 8%{?dist} +Release: 10%{?dist} Summary: GFS Baskerville Greek font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces18th.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces18th.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description John Baskerville (1706-1775) got involed in typography late in his career but @@ -55,48 +56,43 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20070327-10 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20070327-9 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 -- 20070415-8 +- 20070327-8 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup * Wed Apr 30 2008 Nicolas Mailhot Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-baskerville-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 20:28:42 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:28:57 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-baskerville-fonts-20070327-8_fc10:HEAD:gfs-baskerville-fonts-20070327-8.fc10.src.rpm:1215808097 +gfs-baskerville-fonts-20070327-10_fc11:HEAD:gfs-baskerville-fonts-20070327-10.fc11.src.rpm:1229542115 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:31:25 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:31:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts/devel gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.1, 1.2 gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts.spec, 1.6, 1.7 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217193125.92C627012B@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv19087/devel Modified Files: gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts/devel/gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:36:06 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:30:55 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,15 +2,21 @@ + fantasy + + GFS Bodoni Classic + + + GFS Bodoni Classic fantasy - - fantasy - + + GFS Bodoni + GFS Bodoni Classic - + Index: gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts/devel/gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.6 retrieving revision 1.7 diff -u -r1.6 -r1.7 --- gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 20:36:06 -0000 1.6 +++ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:30:55 -0000 1.7 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-bodoni-classic -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-bodoni-classic +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_BODONICLASS_OT Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20070415 -Release: 7%{?dist} +Release: 9%{?dist} Summary: GFS Bodoni Classic oblique Greek font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces18th.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces18th.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description Giambattista Bodoni was the most prolific Italian typecutter of the 18th @@ -50,46 +51,41 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20070415-9 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20070415-8 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 - 20070415-7 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 20:36:06 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:30:55 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts-20070415-7_fc10:HEAD:gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts-20070415-7.fc10.src.rpm:1215808489 +gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts-20070415-9_fc11:HEAD:gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts-20070415-9.fc11.src.rpm:1229542223 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:33:05 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:33:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-bodoni-fonts/devel gfs-bodoni-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.2, 1.3 gfs-bodoni-fonts.spec, 1.6, 1.7 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217193305.9C1D470130@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-bodoni-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv20296/devel Modified Files: gfs-bodoni-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-bodoni-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-bodoni-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-bodoni-fonts/devel/gfs-bodoni-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- gfs-bodoni-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:39:34 -0000 1.2 +++ gfs-bodoni-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:32:35 -0000 1.3 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Bodoni - - serif - - - serif GFS Bodoni + + GFS Bodoni + + serif + + Index: gfs-bodoni-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-bodoni-fonts/devel/gfs-bodoni-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.6 retrieving revision 1.7 diff -u -r1.6 -r1.7 --- gfs-bodoni-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 20:39:34 -0000 1.6 +++ gfs-bodoni-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:32:35 -0000 1.7 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-bodoni -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-bodoni +%define fontconf 60-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_BODONI_OT Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20070415 -Release: 6%{?dist} +Release: 8%{?dist} Summary: GFS Bodoni fonts -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces20th.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces20th.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description Bodoni???s Greek types were the base for the first experimental font by Greek @@ -38,46 +39,41 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20070415-8 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20070415-7 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 - 20070415-6 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-bodoni-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 20:39:34 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:32:35 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-bodoni-fonts-20070415-6_fc10:HEAD:gfs-bodoni-fonts-20070415-6.fc10.src.rpm:1215808757 +gfs-bodoni-fonts-20070415-8_fc11:HEAD:gfs-bodoni-fonts-20070415-8.fc11.src.rpm:1229542332 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:34:48 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:34:48 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-complutum-fonts/devel gfs-complutum-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.1, 1.2 gfs-complutum-fonts.spec, 1.5, 1.6 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217193448.9FBC470131@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-complutum-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv22153/devel Modified Files: gfs-complutum-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-complutum-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-complutum-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-complutum-fonts/devel/gfs-complutum-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-complutum-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:45:41 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-complutum-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:34:18 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Complutum - - fantasy - - - fantasy GFS Complutum + + GFS Complutum + + fantasy + + Index: gfs-complutum-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-complutum-fonts/devel/gfs-complutum-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.5 retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -r1.5 -r1.6 --- gfs-complutum-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 20:45:41 -0000 1.5 +++ gfs-complutum-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:34:18 -0000 1.6 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-complutum -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-complutum +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_COMPLUTUM_OT Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20070413 -Release: 8%{?dist} +Release: 10%{?dist} Summary: GFS Complutum Greek font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces16th.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces16th.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description The ancient Greek alphabet evolved during the millenium of the Byzantine era @@ -60,46 +61,42 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20070413-10 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20070413-9 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 - 20070413-8 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-complutum-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 20:45:41 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:34:18 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-complutum-fonts-20070413-8_fc10:HEAD:gfs-complutum-fonts-20070413-8.fc10.src.rpm:1215809112 +gfs-complutum-fonts-20070413-10_fc11:HEAD:gfs-complutum-fonts-20070413-10.fc11.src.rpm:1229542434 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:36:26 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:36:26 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-didot-classic-fonts/devel gfs-didot-classic-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.2, 1.3 gfs-didot-classic-fonts.spec, 1.6, 1.7 import.log, 1.2, 1.3 Message-ID: <20081217193626.A958A70131@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-didot-classic-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv23613/devel Modified Files: gfs-didot-classic-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-didot-classic-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-didot-classic-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-didot-classic-fonts/devel/gfs-didot-classic-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- gfs-didot-classic-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:46:23 -0000 1.2 +++ gfs-didot-classic-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:35:56 -0000 1.3 @@ -1,22 +1,22 @@ - - GFS Didot - + + serif + GFS Didot Classic - + - GFS Didot + GFS Didot Classic serif - - serif - - GFS Didot - + + GFS Didot + + GFS Didot Classic + Index: gfs-didot-classic-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-didot-classic-fonts/devel/gfs-didot-classic-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.6 retrieving revision 1.7 diff -u -r1.6 -r1.7 --- gfs-didot-classic-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 20:46:23 -0000 1.6 +++ gfs-didot-classic-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:35:56 -0000 1.7 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-didot-classic -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-didot-classic +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_DIDOTCLASS_OT Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20080702 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Release: 4%{?dist} Summary: GFS Didot Classic Greek font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces19th.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces19th.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description Under the influence of the neoclassical ideals of the late 18th century, the @@ -49,46 +50,41 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20080702-4 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20080702-3 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 - 20080702-2 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-didot-classic-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 20:46:23 -0000 1.2 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:35:56 -0000 1.3 @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ gfs-didot-classic-fonts-20080702-1_fc10:HEAD:gfs-didot-classic-fonts-20080702-1.fc10.src.rpm:1215300135 gfs-didot-classic-fonts-20080702-2_fc10:HEAD:gfs-didot-classic-fonts-20080702-2.fc10.src.rpm:1215809169 +gfs-didot-classic-fonts-20080702-4_fc11:HEAD:gfs-didot-classic-fonts-20080702-4.fc11.src.rpm:1229542534 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:38:07 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:38:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-didot-fonts/devel gfs-didot-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.2, 1.3 gfs-didot-fonts.spec, 1.5, 1.6 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217193807.54819700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-didot-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv25748/devel Modified Files: gfs-didot-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-didot-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-didot-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-didot-fonts/devel/gfs-didot-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- gfs-didot-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:48:22 -0000 1.2 +++ gfs-didot-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:37:36 -0000 1.3 @@ -1,6 +1,18 @@ + + serif + + GFS Didot + + + + GFS Didot + + serif + + Palatino @@ -13,16 +25,4 @@ GFS Didot - - GFS Didot - - serif - - - - serif - - GFS Didot - - Index: gfs-didot-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-didot-fonts/devel/gfs-didot-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.5 retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -r1.5 -r1.6 --- gfs-didot-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 20:48:22 -0000 1.5 +++ gfs-didot-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:37:36 -0000 1.6 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-didot -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-didot +%define fontconf 60-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_DIDOT_OT Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20070616 -Release: 7%{?dist} +Release: 9%{?dist} Summary: GFS Didot fonts -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces20th.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces20th.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description Didot???s type was the base for a new font, GFS Didot (1994) which was designed @@ -37,46 +38,41 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20070616-9 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20070616-8 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 - 20070616-7 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-didot-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 20:48:22 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:37:36 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-didot-fonts-20070616-7_fc10:HEAD:gfs-didot-fonts-20070616-7.fc10.src.rpm:1215809267 +gfs-didot-fonts-20070616-9_fc11:HEAD:gfs-didot-fonts-20070616-9.fc11.src.rpm:1229542633 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:39:51 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:39:51 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-eustace-fonts/devel gfs-eustace-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.1, 1.2 gfs-eustace-fonts.spec, 1.1, 1.2 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217193951.71132700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-eustace-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv26589/devel Modified Files: gfs-eustace-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-eustace-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-eustace-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-eustace-fonts/devel/gfs-eustace-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-eustace-fonts-fontconfig.conf 12 Jul 2008 08:14:11 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-eustace-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:39:21 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Eustace - - fantasy - - - fantasy GFS Eustace + + GFS Eustace + + fantasy + + Index: gfs-eustace-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-eustace-fonts/devel/gfs-eustace-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-eustace-fonts.spec 12 Jul 2008 08:14:11 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-eustace-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:39:21 -0000 1.2 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-eustace -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-eustace +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_EUSTACE Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20080303 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} Summary: GFS Eustace majuscule Greek font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces_majuscules.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces_majuscules.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description As it is known, the Greek alphabet was used in majuscule form for over a @@ -53,46 +54,41 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20080303-3 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20080303-2 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Sun Jul 06 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 20080303-1 ?? initial packaging Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-eustace-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 12 Jul 2008 08:14:11 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:39:21 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-eustace-fonts-20080303-1_fc10:HEAD:gfs-eustace-fonts-20080303-1.fc10.src.rpm:1215850441 +gfs-eustace-fonts-20080303-3_fc11:HEAD:gfs-eustace-fonts-20080303-3.fc11.src.rpm:1229542735 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:41:31 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:41:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-fleischman-fonts/devel gfs-fleischman-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.1, 1.2 gfs-fleischman-fonts.spec, 1.1, 1.2 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217194131.23399700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-fleischman-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27083/devel Modified Files: gfs-fleischman-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-fleischman-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-fleischman-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-fleischman-fonts/devel/gfs-fleischman-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-fleischman-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 19:36:01 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-fleischman-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:41:00 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Fleischman - - fantasy - - - fantasy GFS Fleischman + + GFS Fleischman + + fantasy + + Index: gfs-fleischman-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-fleischman-fonts/devel/gfs-fleischman-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-fleischman-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 19:36:01 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-fleischman-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:41:00 -0000 1.2 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-fleischman -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-fleischman +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_FLEISCHMAN Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20080303 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} Summary: GFS Fleischman majuscule Greek font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces_majuscules.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces_majuscules.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description As it is known, the Greek alphabet was used in majuscule form for over a @@ -53,46 +54,41 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20080303-3 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20080303-2 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Sun Jul 06 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 20080303-1 ?? initial packaging Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-fleischman-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 19:36:01 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:41:00 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-fleischman-fonts-20080303-1_fc10:HEAD:gfs-fleischman-fonts-20080303-1.fc10.src.rpm:1215804948 +gfs-fleischman-fonts-20080303-3_fc11:HEAD:gfs-fleischman-fonts-20080303-3.fc11.src.rpm:1229542839 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:43:16 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:43:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-garaldus-fonts/devel gfs-garaldus-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.1, 1.2 gfs-garaldus-fonts.spec, 1.1, 1.2 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217194316.4A565700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-garaldus-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27694/devel Modified Files: gfs-garaldus-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-garaldus-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-garaldus-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-garaldus-fonts/devel/gfs-garaldus-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-garaldus-fonts-fontconfig.conf 22 Jul 2008 19:42:51 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-garaldus-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:42:45 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Garaldus - - fantasy - - - fantasy GFS Garaldus + + GFS Garaldus + + fantasy + + Index: gfs-garaldus-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-garaldus-fonts/devel/gfs-garaldus-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-garaldus-fonts.spec 22 Jul 2008 19:42:51 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-garaldus-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:42:45 -0000 1.2 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-garaldus -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-garaldus +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_GARALDUS Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20080707 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} Summary: GFS Garaldus majuscule Greek font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces_majuscules.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces_majuscules.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description As it is known, the Greek alphabet was used in majuscule form for over a @@ -49,46 +50,41 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20080707-3 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20080707-2 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Mon Jul 21 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 20080707-1 ?? initial packaging Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-garaldus-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 22 Jul 2008 19:42:51 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:42:45 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-garaldus-fonts-20080707-1_fc10:HEAD:gfs-garaldus-fonts-20080707-1.fc10.src.rpm:1216755659 +gfs-garaldus-fonts-20080707-3_fc11:HEAD:gfs-garaldus-fonts-20080707-3.fc11.src.rpm:1229542939 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:44:57 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:44:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-gazis-fonts/devel gfs-gazis-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.2, 1.3 gfs-gazis-fonts.spec, 1.6, 1.7 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217194457.D8981700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-gazis-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv28230/devel Modified Files: gfs-gazis-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-gazis-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-gazis-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-gazis-fonts/devel/gfs-gazis-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- gfs-gazis-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:48:59 -0000 1.2 +++ gfs-gazis-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:44:27 -0000 1.3 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Gazis - - serif - - - serif GFS Gazis + + GFS Gazis + + serif + + Index: gfs-gazis-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-gazis-fonts/devel/gfs-gazis-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.6 retrieving revision 1.7 diff -u -r1.6 -r1.7 --- gfs-gazis-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 20:48:59 -0000 1.6 +++ gfs-gazis-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:44:27 -0000 1.7 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-gazis -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-gazis +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_GAZIS Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20080318 -Release: 3%{?dist} +Release: 5%{?dist} Summary: GFS Gazis Greek font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces18th.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces18th.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description During the whole of the 18th century the old tradition of using Greek types @@ -48,46 +49,41 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20080318-5 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20080318-4 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 - 20080318-3 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-gazis-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 20:48:59 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:44:27 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-gazis-fonts-20080318-3_fc10:HEAD:gfs-gazis-fonts-20080318-3.fc10.src.rpm:1215809328 +gfs-gazis-fonts-20080318-5_fc11:HEAD:gfs-gazis-fonts-20080318-5.fc11.src.rpm:1229543045 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:46:42 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:46:42 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-jackson-fonts/devel gfs-jackson-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.1, 1.2 gfs-jackson-fonts.spec, 1.1, 1.2 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217194642.52811700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-jackson-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv28823/devel Modified Files: gfs-jackson-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-jackson-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-jackson-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-jackson-fonts/devel/gfs-jackson-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-jackson-fonts-fontconfig.conf 19 Jul 2008 16:02:05 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-jackson-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:46:11 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Jackson - - fantasy - - - fantasy GFS Jackson + + GFS Jackson + + fantasy + + Index: gfs-jackson-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-jackson-fonts/devel/gfs-jackson-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-jackson-fonts.spec 19 Jul 2008 16:02:05 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-jackson-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:46:11 -0000 1.2 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-jackson -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-jackson +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_JACKSON Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20080303 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} Summary: GFS Jackson majuscule Greek font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces_majuscules.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces_majuscules.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description As it is known, the Greek alphabet was used in majuscule form for over a @@ -55,46 +56,42 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20080303-3 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20080303-2 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Sun Jul 06 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 20080303-1 ?? initial packaging Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-jackson-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 19 Jul 2008 16:02:05 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:46:11 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-jackson-fonts-20080303-1_fc10:HEAD:gfs-jackson-fonts-20080303-1.fc10.src.rpm:1216483310 +gfs-jackson-fonts-20080303-3_fc11:HEAD:gfs-jackson-fonts-20080303-3.fc11.src.rpm:1229543149 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:48:24 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:48:24 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-neohellenic-fonts/devel gfs-neohellenic-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.2, 1.3 gfs-neohellenic-fonts.spec, 1.5, 1.6 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217194824.C2186700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-neohellenic-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv29697/devel Modified Files: gfs-neohellenic-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-neohellenic-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-neohellenic-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-neohellenic-fonts/devel/gfs-neohellenic-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- gfs-neohellenic-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:49:44 -0000 1.2 +++ gfs-neohellenic-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:47:54 -0000 1.3 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Neohellenic - - sans-serif - - - sans-serif GFS Neohellenic + + GFS Neohellenic + + sans-serif + + Index: gfs-neohellenic-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-neohellenic-fonts/devel/gfs-neohellenic-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.5 retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -r1.5 -r1.6 --- gfs-neohellenic-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 20:49:44 -0000 1.5 +++ gfs-neohellenic-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:47:54 -0000 1.6 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-neohellenic -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-neohellenic +%define fontconf 60-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_NEOHELLENIC_OT Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20070415 -Release: 6%{?dist} +Release: 8%{?dist} Summary: GFS Neohellenic fonts -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces20th.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces20th.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description The design of new Greek typefaces always followed the growing needs of the @@ -57,46 +58,41 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20070415-8 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20070415-7 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 - 20070415-6 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-neohellenic-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 20:49:44 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:47:54 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-neohellenic-fonts-20070415-6_fc10:HEAD:gfs-neohellenic-fonts-20070415-6.fc10.src.rpm:1215809363 +gfs-neohellenic-fonts-20070415-8_fc11:HEAD:gfs-neohellenic-fonts-20070415-8.fc11.src.rpm:1229543250 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:50:20 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:50:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-nicefore-fonts/devel gfs-nicefore-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.1, 1.2 gfs-nicefore-fonts.spec, 1.1, 1.2 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217195020.9FB48700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-nicefore-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv30389/devel Modified Files: gfs-nicefore-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-nicefore-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-nicefore-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-nicefore-fonts/devel/gfs-nicefore-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-nicefore-fonts-fontconfig.conf 19 Jul 2008 15:44:33 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-nicefore-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:49:49 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Nicefore - - fantasy - - - fantasy GFS Nicefore + + GFS Nicefore + + fantasy + + Index: gfs-nicefore-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-nicefore-fonts/devel/gfs-nicefore-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-nicefore-fonts.spec 19 Jul 2008 15:44:33 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-nicefore-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:49:49 -0000 1.2 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-nicefore -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-nicefore +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_NICEFORE Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20080303 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} Summary: GFS Nicefore majuscule Greek font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces_majuscules.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces_majuscules.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description As it is known, the Greek alphabet was used in majuscule form for over a @@ -51,46 +52,41 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20080303-3 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20080303-2 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Sun Jul 06 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 20080303-1 ?? initial packaging Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-nicefore-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 19 Jul 2008 15:44:33 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:49:50 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-nicefore-fonts-20080303-1_fc10:HEAD:gfs-nicefore-fonts-20080303-1.fc10.src.rpm:1216482262 +gfs-nicefore-fonts-20080303-3_fc11:HEAD:gfs-nicefore-fonts-20080303-3.fc11.src.rpm:1229543362 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:52:07 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:52:07 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-olga-fonts/devel gfs-olga-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.1, 1.2 gfs-olga-fonts.spec, 1.5, 1.6 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217195207.5E107700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-olga-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv30895/devel Modified Files: gfs-olga-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-olga-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-olga-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-olga-fonts/devel/gfs-olga-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-olga-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:50:30 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-olga-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:51:36 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Olga - - fantasy - - - fantasy GFS Olga + + GFS Olga + + fantasy + + Index: gfs-olga-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-olga-fonts/devel/gfs-olga-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.5 retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -r1.5 -r1.6 --- gfs-olga-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 20:50:30 -0000 1.5 +++ gfs-olga-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:51:36 -0000 1.6 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-olga -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-olga +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_OLGA_OT Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20060908 -Release: 6%{?dist} +Release: 8%{?dist} Summary: GFS Olga experimental oblique font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces20th.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces20th.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description In Greece the terms italic and oblique have the same meaning since they are @@ -47,46 +48,42 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20060908-8 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20060908-7 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 - 20060908-6 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-olga-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 20:50:30 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:51:36 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-olga-fonts-20060908-6_fc10:HEAD:gfs-olga-fonts-20060908-6.fc10.src.rpm:1215809420 +gfs-olga-fonts-20060908-8_fc11:HEAD:gfs-olga-fonts-20060908-8.fc11.src.rpm:1229543473 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:54:01 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:54:01 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-porson-fonts/devel gfs-porson-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.2, 1.3 gfs-porson-fonts.spec, 1.5, 1.6 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217195401.EF8EE700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-porson-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv31469/devel Modified Files: gfs-porson-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-porson-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-porson-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-porson-fonts/devel/gfs-porson-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- gfs-porson-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:51:14 -0000 1.2 +++ gfs-porson-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:53:31 -0000 1.3 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Porson - - serif - - - serif GFS Porson + + GFS Porson + + serif + + Index: gfs-porson-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-porson-fonts/devel/gfs-porson-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.5 retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -r1.5 -r1.6 --- gfs-porson-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 20:51:14 -0000 1.5 +++ gfs-porson-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:53:31 -0000 1.6 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-porson -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-porson +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_Porson_OT Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20060908 -Release: 8%{?dist} +Release: 10%{?dist} Summary: GFS Porson Greek font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces19th.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces19th.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description In England, during the 1790???s, Cambridge University Press decided to procure a @@ -48,46 +49,42 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20060908-10 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20060908-9 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 - 20060908-8 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-porson-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 20:51:14 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:53:31 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-porson-fonts-20060908-8_fc10:HEAD:gfs-porson-fonts-20060908-8.fc10.src.rpm:1215809463 +gfs-porson-fonts-20060908-10_fc11:HEAD:gfs-porson-fonts-20060908-10.fc11.src.rpm:1229543577 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:55:53 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:55:53 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-solomos-fonts/devel gfs-solomos-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.1, 1.2 gfs-solomos-fonts.spec, 1.5, 1.6 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217195553.68C8A700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-solomos-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv32000/devel Modified Files: gfs-solomos-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-solomos-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-solomos-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-solomos-fonts/devel/gfs-solomos-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-solomos-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:54:01 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-solomos-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:55:21 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Solomos - - fantasy - - - fantasy GFS Solomos + + GFS Solomos + + fantasy + + Index: gfs-solomos-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-solomos-fonts/devel/gfs-solomos-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.5 retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -r1.5 -r1.6 --- gfs-solomos-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 20:54:01 -0000 1.5 +++ gfs-solomos-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:55:21 -0000 1.6 @@ -1,22 +1,23 @@ -%define fontname gfs-solomos -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-solomos +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_SOLOMOS_OT Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20071114 -Release: 7%{?dist} +Release: 9%{?dist} Summary: GFS Solomos oblique Greek font -Group: User Interface/X -License: OFL -URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces19th.html -Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: OFL +URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces19th.html +Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description From the middle of the 19th century an italic font with many calligraphic @@ -54,46 +55,42 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20071114-9 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20071114-8 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 - 20071114-7 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-solomos-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 20:54:01 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:55:21 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-solomos-fonts-20071114-7_fc10:HEAD:gfs-solomos-fonts-20071114-7.fc10.src.rpm:1215809630 +gfs-solomos-fonts-20071114-9_fc11:HEAD:gfs-solomos-fonts-20071114-9.fc11.src.rpm:1229543694 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:57:34 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:57:34 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/gfs-theokritos-fonts/devel gfs-theokritos-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.1, 1.2 gfs-theokritos-fonts.spec, 1.5, 1.6 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081217195734.4E989700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-theokritos-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv361/devel Modified Files: gfs-theokritos-fonts-fontconfig.conf gfs-theokritos-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: gfs-theokritos-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-theokritos-fonts/devel/gfs-theokritos-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gfs-theokritos-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:54:35 -0000 1.1 +++ gfs-theokritos-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:57:03 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - GFS Theokritos - - fantasy - - - fantasy GFS Theokritos + + GFS Theokritos + + fantasy + + Index: gfs-theokritos-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-theokritos-fonts/devel/gfs-theokritos-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.5 retrieving revision 1.6 diff -u -r1.5 -r1.6 --- gfs-theokritos-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 20:54:35 -0000 1.5 +++ gfs-theokritos-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:57:03 -0000 1.6 @@ -1,12 +1,11 @@ -%define fontname gfs-theokritos -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname gfs-theokritos +%define fontconf 60-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename GFS_THEOKRITOS_OT Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20070415 -Release: 7%{?dist} +Release: 11%{?dist} Summary: GFS Theokritos decorative font Group: User Interface/X @@ -14,9 +13,11 @@ URL: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/pages/en_typefaces20th.html Source0: http://www.greekfontsociety.gr/%{archivename}.zip Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf - BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description Yannis Kefallinos (1894???1958) was one of the most innovative engravers of his @@ -54,46 +55,41 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.otf +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20070415-11 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20070415-10 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 - 20070415-7 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/gfs-theokritos-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 20:54:35 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:57:03 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ gfs-theokritos-fonts-20070415-7_fc10:HEAD:gfs-theokritos-fonts-20070415-7.fc10.src.rpm:1215809664 +gfs-theokritos-fonts-20070415-11_fc11:HEAD:gfs-theokritos-fonts-20070415-11.fc11.src.rpm:1229543800 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 19:59:23 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:59:23 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/stix-fonts/devel import.log, 1.1, 1.2 stix-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.3, 1.4 stix-fonts.spec, 1.4, 1.5 Message-ID: <20081217195923.68674700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/stix-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv1205/devel Modified Files: import.log stix-fonts-fontconfig.conf stix-fonts.spec Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/stix-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 20:56:41 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:58:52 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ stix-fonts-0_9-7_fc10:HEAD:stix-fonts-0.9-7.fc10.src.rpm:1215809789 +stix-fonts-0_9-9_fc11:HEAD:stix-fonts-0.9-9.fc11.src.rpm:1229543904 Index: stix-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/stix-fonts/devel/stix-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- stix-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:56:41 -0000 1.3 +++ stix-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 19:58:52 -0000 1.4 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - STIXGeneral - - serif - - - serif STIXGeneral + + STIXGeneral + + serif + + Index: stix-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/stix-fonts/devel/stix-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.4 retrieving revision 1.5 diff -u -r1.4 -r1.5 --- stix-fonts.spec 11 Jul 2008 20:56:41 -0000 1.4 +++ stix-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:58:52 -0000 1.5 @@ -1,50 +1,49 @@ -%define fontname stix -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname stix +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname} %define archivename STIXBeta +%define common_desc \ +The mission of the Scientific and Technical Information Exchange (STIX) font \ +creation project is the preparation of a comprehensive set of fonts that serve \ +the scientific and engineering community in the process from manuscript \ +creation through final publication, both in electronic and print formats. + Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 0.9 -Release: 7%{?dist} +Release: 9%{?dist} Summary: STIX scientific and engineering fonts -Group: User Interface/X -License: STIX -URL: http://www.stixfonts.org/ -Source0: %{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-License.txt -Source2: stix-fonts-fontconfig.conf -Source3: stix-fonts-pua-fontconfig.conf -Source4: stix-fonts-integrals-fontconfig.conf -Source5: stix-fonts-sizes-fontconfig.conf -Source6: stix-fonts-variants-fontconfig.conf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: STIX +URL: http://www.stixfonts.org/ +Source0: %{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-License.txt +Source2: stix-fonts-fontconfig.conf +Source3: stix-fonts-pua-fontconfig.conf +Source4: stix-fonts-integrals-fontconfig.conf +Source5: stix-fonts-sizes-fontconfig.conf +Source6: stix-fonts-variants-fontconfig.conf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description -The mission of the Scientific and Technical Information Exchange (STIX) font -creation project is the preparation of a comprehensive set of fonts that serve -the scientific and engineering community in the process from manuscript -creation through final publication, both in electronic and print formats. +%common_desc This package includes base Unicode fonts containing most glyphs for standard use. -%package pua -Group: User Interface/X +%package pua Summary: STIX scientific and engineering fonts, PUA glyphs -# Does not really make sense without the core typefaces +Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - %description pua -The mission of the Scientific and Technical Information Exchange (STIX) font -creation project is the preparation of a comprehensive set of fonts that serve -the scientific and engineering community in the process from manuscript -creation through final publication, both in electronic and print formats. +%common_desc This package includes fonts containing glyphs called out from the Unicode Private Use Area (PUA) range. Glyphs in this range do not have an official @@ -52,56 +51,49 @@ software. Text using them will break if they're ever accepted by the Unicode Consortium and moved to an official codepoint. +%_font_pkg -n pua -f %{fontconf}-pua.conf STIXNonUni*otf -%package integrals -Group: User Interface/X + +%package integrals Summary: STIX scientific and engineering fonts, additional integral glyphs -# Does not really make sense without the core typefaces +Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - %description integrals -The mission of the Scientific and Technical Information Exchange (STIX) font -creation project is the preparation of a comprehensive set of fonts that serve -the scientific and engineering community in the process from manuscript -creation through final publication, both in electronic and print formats. +%common_desc This package includes fonts containing additional integrals of various size and slant. +%_font_pkg -n integrals -f %{fontconf}-integrals.conf STIXInt*.otf -%package sizes -Group: User Interface/X + +%package sizes Summary: STIX scientific and engineering fonts, additional glyph sizes -# Does not really make sense without the core typefaces +Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - %description sizes -The mission of the Scientific and Technical Information Exchange (STIX) font -creation project is the preparation of a comprehensive set of fonts that serve -the scientific and engineering community in the process from manuscript -creation through final publication, both in electronic and print formats. +%common_desc This package includes fonts containing glyphs in additional sizes (Mostly "fence" and "piece" glyphs). +%_font_pkg -n sizes -f %{fontconf}-sizes.conf STIXSiz*.otf -%package variants -Group: User Interface/X + +%package variants Summary: STIX scientific and engineering fonts, additional glyph variants -# Does not really make sense without the core typefaces +Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - %description variants -The mission of the Scientific and Technical Information Exchange (STIX) font -creation project is the preparation of a comprehensive set of fonts that serve -the scientific and engineering community in the process from manuscript -creation through final publication, both in electronic and print formats. +%common_desc This package includes fonts containing alternative variants of some glyphs. +%_font_pkg -n variants -f %{fontconf}-variants.conf STIXVar*otf + %prep %setup -c -q -n %{archivename} @@ -115,120 +107,57 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE2} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE3} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}-pua.conf -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE4} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}-integrals.conf -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE5} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}-sizes.conf -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE6} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}-variants.conf +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} + +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE2} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE3} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}-pua.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE4} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}-integrals.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE5} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}-sizes.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE6} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}-variants.conf + +for fontconf in %{fontconf}.conf \ + %{fontconf}-pua.conf \ + %{fontconf}-integrals.conf \ + %{fontconf}-sizes.conf \ + %{fontconf}-variants.conf ; do + ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/$fontconf \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/$fontconf +done %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf}.conf STIXGeneral*otf -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%post pua -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun pua -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%post integrals -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun integrals -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%post sizes -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun sizes -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - -%post variants -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun variants -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.txt -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/STIXGeneral*otf - - -%files pua -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}-pua.conf -%{fontdir}/STIXNonUni*otf - - -%files integrals -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}-integrals.conf -%{fontdir}/STIXInt*.otf - - -%files sizes -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}-sizes.conf -%{fontdir}/STIXSiz*.otf - - -%files variants -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/61-%{fontname}-variants.conf -%{fontdir}/STIXVar*otf +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 0.9-9 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 0.9-8 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Fri Jul 11 2008 - 0.9-7 ??? Fedora 10 alpha general package cleanup From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 20:01:09 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:01:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/ecolier-court-fonts/devel ecolier-court-fonts.spec, 1.2, 1.3 import.log, 1.2, 1.3 Message-ID: <20081217200109.E589370130@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/ecolier-court-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv2208/devel Modified Files: ecolier-court-fonts.spec import.log Log Message: fedora rpm trumps rhel rpm Index: ecolier-court-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/ecolier-court-fonts/devel/ecolier-court-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- ecolier-court-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 19:21:34 -0000 1.2 +++ ecolier-court-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 20:00:39 -0000 1.3 @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ %define fontconf 61-%{fontname} %define common_desc\ -??colier are a set of Latin fonts created by Jean-Marie Douteau to mimic the \ +This set of Latin fonts was created by Jean-Marie Douteau to mimic the \ traditional cursive writing French children are taught in school. \ \ He kindly released two of them under the OFL, which are redistributed in \ @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20070702 -Release: 4%{?dist} +Release: 5%{?dist} Summary: ??colier court cursive fonts Group: User Interface/X @@ -109,6 +109,10 @@ %changelog +* Wed Dec 17 2008 +- 20070702-5 +??? Workaround RHEL5 rpm unicode bug to fix koji build + * Sun Nov 23 2008 - 20070702-4 ??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/ecolier-court-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- import.log 17 Dec 2008 19:21:34 -0000 1.2 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 20:00:39 -0000 1.3 @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ ecolier-court-fonts-20070702-1_fc10:HEAD:ecolier-court-fonts-20070702-1.fc10.src.rpm:1216485467 ecolier-court-fonts-20070702-4_fc11:HEAD:ecolier-court-fonts-20070702-4.fc11.src.rpm:1229541673 +ecolier-court-fonts-20070702-5_fc11:HEAD:ecolier-court-fonts-20070702-5.fc11.src.rpm:1229543899 From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 20:01:16 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:01:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts/devel import.log, 1.2, 1.3 yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts-fontconfig.conf, 1.2, 1.3 yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts.spec, 1.3, 1.4 Message-ID: <20081217200116.BD53370130@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv2300/devel Modified Files: import.log yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts-fontconfig.conf yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts.spec Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- import.log 1 Sep 2008 13:04:49 -0000 1.2 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 20:00:45 -0000 1.3 @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts-20061120-3_fc10:HEAD:yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts-20061120-3.fc10.src.rpm:1215809853 yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts-20080723-1_fc10:HEAD:yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts-20080723-1.fc10.src.rpm:1220274279 +yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts-20080723-3_fc11:HEAD:yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts-20080723-3.fc11.src.rpm:1229544015 Index: yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts-fontconfig.conf =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts/devel/yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts-fontconfig.conf,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts-fontconfig.conf 11 Jul 2008 20:57:44 -0000 1.2 +++ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts-fontconfig.conf 17 Dec 2008 20:00:45 -0000 1.3 @@ -2,15 +2,15 @@ - Yanone Kaffeesatz - - fantasy - - - fantasy Yanone Kaffeesatz + + Yanone Kaffeesatz + + fantasy + + Index: yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts/devel/yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts.spec 1 Sep 2008 13:04:49 -0000 1.3 +++ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 20:00:45 -0000 1.4 @@ -1,23 +1,24 @@ -%define fontname yanone-kaffeesatz -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontname yanone-kaffeesatz +%define fontconf 60-%{fontname}.conf %define archivename YanoneKaffeesatz Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20080723 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} Summary: Yanone Kaffeesatz decorative fonts -Group: User Interface/X -License: CC-BY -URL: http://www.yanone.de/typedesign/kaffeesatz/ -Source0: %{url}%{archivename}.zip -Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf -Source2: %{url}%{archivename}.pdf - +Group: User Interface/X +License: CC-BY +URL: http://www.yanone.de/typedesign/kaffeesatz/ +Source0: %{url}%{archivename}.zip +Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf +Source2: %{url}%{archivename}.pdf BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) -BuildArch: noarch + +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description Sans-serif decorative latin OTF font by Jan Gerner, suitable for titles and @@ -30,46 +31,42 @@ %build -# Nothing there %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.otf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} + +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf +install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE1} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} *.otf - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc *.pdf - -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf - -%dir %{fontdir} -%{fontdir}/*.otf +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 20080723-3 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Fri Nov 14 2008 +- 20080723-2 +??? Rebuild using new rpm-font + * Mon Sep 1 2008 - 20080723-1 ??? Upstream stealth update From nim at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 17 20:11:32 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:11:32 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel .cvsignore, 1.50, 1.51 dejavu-fonts.spec, 1.90, 1.91 import.log, 1.7, 1.8 sources, 1.50, 1.51 Message-ID: <20081217201132.AE0B5700D7@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv8681/devel Modified Files: .cvsignore dejavu-fonts.spec import.log sources Log Message: update for new fonts guidelines Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.50 retrieving revision 1.51 diff -u -r1.50 -r1.51 --- .cvsignore 27 Jul 2008 13:35:50 -0000 1.50 +++ .cvsignore 17 Dec 2008 20:11:02 -0000 1.51 @@ -1 +1 @@ -dejavu-fonts-2.26.tar.bz2 +dejavu-fonts-2.27.tar.bz2 Index: dejavu-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel/dejavu-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.90 retrieving revision 1.91 diff -u -r1.90 -r1.91 --- dejavu-fonts.spec 9 Nov 2008 09:06:24 -0000 1.90 +++ dejavu-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 20:11:02 -0000 1.91 @@ -1,7 +1,4 @@ %define fontname dejavu -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname}/ -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d/ - %define archivename %{name}-%{archiveversion} #define alphatag .20080512svn2226 @@ -11,8 +8,8 @@ %define archiveversion %{version} # Let the perl maintainer worry about Unicode.org data files -%define Blocks %(eval "$(%{__perl} -V:privlibexp)"; echo $privlibexp)/unicore/Blocks.txt -%define UnicodeData %(eval "$(%{__perl} -V:privlibexp)"; echo $privlibexp)/unicore/UnicodeData.txt +%define Blocks %(eval "$(%{__perl} -V:privlibexp)"; echo $privlibexp)/unicore/Blocks.txt +%define UnicodeData %(eval "$(%{__perl} -V:privlibexp)"; echo $privlibexp)/unicore/UnicodeData.txt # Common description %define common_desc \ @@ -26,65 +23,33 @@ package split. It will be removed after one distribution release cycle, please\ do not reference it or depend on it in any way.\ \ -It can be safely uninstalled. - +It can be safely uninstalled. -# Subpackage magic - should be generic enough for reuse in other packages -%define font_subpkg(n:f:) \ -\ -%post %{-n*} \ -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then \ - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : \ -fi \ -\ -\ -%postun %{-n*} \ -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then \ - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : \ -fi\ -\ -\ -%files %{-n*} \ -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) \ -\ -%{-f:%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}%{-f*}} \ -\ -%(echo %* | sed "s+ +\\n+g"| sed "s+^+%{fontdir}+g") Name: %{fontname}-fonts -Version: 2.26 -Release: 6%{?alphatag}%{?dist} +Version: 2.27 +Release: 7%{?alphatag}%{?dist} Summary: DejaVu fonts -Group: User Interface/X -License: Bitstream Vera and Public Domain -URL: http://%{fontname}.sf.net/ -Source0: %{?!alphatag:http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{fontname}}%{?alphatag:%{fontname}.sourceforge.net/snapshots}/%{archivename}.tar.bz2 -Patch0: %{name}-2.26-fontconfig.patch - +Group: User Interface/X +License: Bitstream Vera and Public Domain +URL: http://%{fontname}.sf.net/ +Source0: %{?!alphatag:http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{fontname}}%{?alphatag:%{fontname}.sourceforge.net/snapshots}/%{archivename}.tar.bz2 +Patch0: %{name}-2.26-fontconfig.patch BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) + # Older fontforge versions will not work due to sfd format changes BuildRequires: fontforge >= 20080429 BuildRequires: perl(Font::TTF) # Needed to compute unicode coverage BuildRequires: %{Blocks} %{UnicodeData} -BuildArch: noarch -%description -%common_desc +BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel - -%package common -Summary: DejaVu fonts, common files (documentation???) -Group: User Interface/X - -Obsoletes: dejavu-fonts-doc < 2.26-6 - -%description common +%description %common_desc -This package consists of files used by other DejaVu packages. - %package compat Summary: DejaVu fonts, compatibility @@ -111,18 +76,34 @@ %compat_desc +%package common +Summary: DejaVu fonts, common files (documentation???) +Group: User Interface/X +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem + +Obsoletes: dejavu-fonts-doc < 2.26-6 + +%description common +%common_desc + +This package consists of files used by other DejaVu packages. + + %package sans Summary: DejaVu, variable-width sans-serif font faces Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} +Conflicts: dejavu-fonts < 2.26-3 +Conflicts: dejavu-fonts-experimental < 2.26-3 + %description sans %common_desc This package consists of the DejaVu sans-serif variable-width font faces, in their unabridged version. -%font_subpkg -n sans -f *-%{fontname}-sans.conf DejaVuSans.ttf DejaVuSans-*.ttf DejaVuSansCondensed*.ttf +%_font_pkg -n sans -f *-%{fontname}-sans.conf DejaVuSans.ttf DejaVuSans-*.ttf DejaVuSansCondensed*.ttf %package serif @@ -130,13 +111,16 @@ Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} +Conflicts: dejavu-fonts < 2.26-3 +Conflicts: dejavu-fonts-experimental < 2.26-3 + %description serif %common_desc This package consists of the DejaVu serif variable-width font faces, in their unabridged version. -%font_subpkg -n serif -f *-%{fontname}-serif.conf DejaVuSerif.ttf DejaVuSerif-*.ttf DejaVuSerifCondensed*.ttf +%_font_pkg -n serif -f *-%{fontname}-serif.conf DejaVuSerif.ttf DejaVuSerif-*.ttf DejaVuSerifCondensed*.ttf %package sans-mono @@ -144,13 +128,16 @@ Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} +Conflicts: dejavu-fonts < 2.26-3 +Conflicts: dejavu-fonts-experimental < 2.26-3 + %description sans-mono %common_desc This package consists of the DejaVu sans-serif monospace font faces, in their unabridged version. -%font_subpkg -n sans-mono -f *-%{fontname}-sans-mono.conf DejaVuSansMono*.ttf +%_font_pkg -n sans-mono -f *-%{fontname}-sans-mono.conf DejaVuSansMono*.ttf %package lgc-sans @@ -158,13 +145,15 @@ Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} +Conflicts: dejavu-lgc-fonts < 2.26-3 + %description lgc-sans %common_desc This package consists of the DejaVu sans-serif variable-width font faces, with unicode coverage restricted to Latin, Greek and Cyrillic. -%font_subpkg -n lgc-sans -f *-%{fontname}-lgc-sans.conf DejaVuLGCSans.ttf DejaVuLGCSans-*.ttf DejaVuLGCSansCondensed*.ttf +%_font_pkg -n lgc-sans -f *-%{fontname}-lgc-sans.conf DejaVuLGCSans.ttf DejaVuLGCSans-*.ttf DejaVuLGCSansCondensed*.ttf %package lgc-serif @@ -172,13 +161,15 @@ Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} +Conflicts: dejavu-lgc-fonts < 2.26-3 + %description lgc-serif %common_desc This package consists of the DejaVu serif variable-width font faces, with unicode coverage restricted to Latin, Greek and Cyrillic. -%font_subpkg -n lgc-serif -f *-%{fontname}-lgc-serif.conf DejaVuLGCSerif.ttf DejaVuLGCSerif-*.ttf DejaVuLGCSerifCondensed*.ttf +%_font_pkg -n lgc-serif -f *-%{fontname}-lgc-serif.conf DejaVuLGCSerif.ttf DejaVuLGCSerif-*.ttf DejaVuLGCSerifCondensed*.ttf %package lgc-sans-mono @@ -186,13 +177,15 @@ Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} +Conflicts: dejavu-lgc-fonts < 2.26-3 + %description lgc-sans-mono %common_desc This package consists of the DejaVu sans-serif monospace font faces, with unicode coverage restricted to Latin, Greek and Cyrillic. -%font_subpkg -n lgc-sans-mono -f *-%{fontname}-lgc-sans-mono.conf DejaVuLGCSansMono*.ttf +%_font_pkg -n lgc-sans-mono -f *-%{fontname}-lgc-sans-mono.conf DejaVuLGCSansMono*.ttf %prep @@ -215,29 +208,53 @@ %install rm -fr %{buildroot} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 -p build/*.ttf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p build/*.ttf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} -install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} -install -m 0644 -p fontconfig/*conf %{buildroot}%{fontconfdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} + +cd fontconfig +for fontconf in *conf ; do + install -m 0644 -p $fontconf %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} + ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/$fontconf \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/$fontconf +done %clean rm -fr %{buildroot} + +%files compat +%files lgc-compat + + %files common %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc AUTHORS BUGS LICENSE NEWS README %doc build/unicover.txt build/status.txt.bz2 -%dir %{fontdir}/ - - -%files compat -%files lgc-compat +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sat Dec 6 2008 +- 2.27-7 +?? Add explicit conflicts to help yum + +* Sun Nov 23 2008 +- 2.27-5 +??? ???rpm-fonts??? renamed to ???fontpackages??? + +* Tue Nov 12 2008 +- 2.27-4 +??? Tweak using new ????rpm-fonts???? + +* Mon Nov 10 2008 +- 2.26-7 +??? Rebuild using new ????rpm-fonts???? + * Sun Nov 9 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 2.26-6 ??? Package split reorganisation, following font family lines Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.7 retrieving revision 1.8 diff -u -r1.7 -r1.8 --- import.log 9 Nov 2008 09:06:25 -0000 1.7 +++ import.log 17 Dec 2008 20:11:02 -0000 1.8 @@ -5,3 +5,4 @@ dejavu-fonts-2_26-4_fc11:HEAD:dejavu-fonts-2.26-4.fc11.src.rpm:1226172743 dejavu-fonts-2_26-5_fc11:HEAD:dejavu-fonts-2.26-5.fc11.src.rpm:1226174018 dejavu-fonts-2_26-6_fc11:HEAD:dejavu-fonts-2.26-6.fc11.src.rpm:1226221359 +dejavu-fonts-2_27-7_fc11:HEAD:dejavu-fonts-2.27-7.fc11.src.rpm:1229544635 Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel/sources,v retrieving revision 1.50 retrieving revision 1.51 diff -u -r1.50 -r1.51 --- sources 27 Jul 2008 13:35:50 -0000 1.50 +++ sources 17 Dec 2008 20:11:02 -0000 1.51 @@ -1 +1 @@ -26bae23fdfaba1020a88bcbf147ccd79 dejavu-fonts-2.26.tar.bz2 +bcab42220bcc27e094227ad6677d184d dejavu-fonts-2.27.tar.bz2 From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 17 20:15:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:15:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 225618] Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812172015.mBHKFbwu013762@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225618 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #17 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-17 15:15:34 EDT --- Spec updated to latest guidelines as part of the F11 fonts packaging guidelines change -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 17 21:41:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:41:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476758] Review Request: libspiro - Library to simplify the drawing of beautiful curves In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812172141.mBHLfQnG008415@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476758 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-17 16:41:25 EDT --- >* rpmlint says: > libspiro-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation >At the least the license file can go in the %doc of this subpackage. I also >think that the README* files would suit the devel subpackage better. ok. I can put them in both... not a big deal. >* I suggest you to make use of the %{name} and %{version} macros. Sure. Good idea. Thanks! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: libspiro Short Description: Library to simplify the drawing of beautiful curves Owners: kevin Branches: devel InitialCC: Lubomir: If you would like to co-maintain this as your inkscape can use it, feel free to request in pkgdb and I will be happy to approve you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 17 23:15:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:15:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 466369] font rendering is messed up after 20081007 changes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812172315.mBHNFhBE014334@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466369 Michal Jaegermann changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(michal at harddata.c | |om) | --- Comment #35 from Michal Jaegermann 2008-12-17 18:15:40 EDT --- As a matter of fact with the latest xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.9.0-62.fc10.x86_64, which showed up in rawhide package today, I do not see anymore that damage which haunted me for such long time. With the previous xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.9.0-61.fc10 I still could observe missing pixels on the right hand side of the bottom arch of "d" or "u", at least in some fonts and some magnifications, but after the latest updates so far I did not find anything amiss. I would be inclined to close that bug if not a comment #33 from Matthias Runge. It may happen also that a damage will return. BTW - what is now a simple way to produce a screen dump? "PrtScr" key does not work anymore as it used to. 'xloadimage -dump ...', even if xloadimage package is installed, does not seem to be able to do that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 00:35:21 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:35:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812180035.mBI0ZLMO030205@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #67 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-17 19:35:16 EDT --- freetype-2.3.7-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 00:35:45 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:35:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812180035.mBI0Zjo5007703@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #68 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-17 19:35:44 EDT --- freetype-2.3.5-7.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 00:35:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:35:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812180035.mBI0ZOOu007561@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|RAWHIDE |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 00:38:49 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:38:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476758] Review Request: libspiro - Library to simplify the drawing of beautiful curves In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812180038.mBI0cng2008990@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476758 Kevin Fenzi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-17 19:38:48 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 00:43:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:43:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812180043.mBI0hKRj010955@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #69 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-17 19:43:19 EDT --- freetype-2.3.5-5.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 01:03:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:03:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476758] Review Request: libspiro - Library to simplify the drawing of beautiful curves In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812180103.mBI13Kvt005674@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476758 Kevin Fenzi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-17 20:03:19 EDT --- Thanks for the review! Built in rawhide...closing this now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Thu Dec 18 01:49:42 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:49:42 -0800 Subject: [Bug 394103] All elements are HUGE (when doing dpi autodetect?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812180149.mBI1ngF4023148@mrapp51.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394103 Daniel Veditz changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dveditz at mozilla.com Flag|wanted1.9.0.x+ | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From kevin at fedoraproject.org Thu Dec 18 03:31:58 2008 From: kevin at fedoraproject.org (Kevin Fenzi) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:31:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/fontforge/devel fontforge.spec,1.38,1.39 Message-ID: <20081218033158.9DDD070133@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: kevin Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/fontforge/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv11730 Modified Files: fontforge.spec Log Message: Add libspiro-devel to build with spiro Index: fontforge.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontforge/devel/fontforge.spec,v retrieving revision 1.38 retrieving revision 1.39 diff -u -r1.38 -r1.39 --- fontforge.spec 16 Dec 2008 22:12:42 -0000 1.38 +++ fontforge.spec 18 Dec 2008 03:31:27 -0000 1.39 @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Name: fontforge Version: 20081215 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} Summary: Outline and bitmap font editor Group: Applications/Publishing @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ BuildRequires: gettext BuildRequires: pango-devel BuildRequires: cairo-devel - +BuildRequires: libspiro-devel %description FontForge (former PfaEdit) is a font editor for outline and bitmap @@ -139,6 +139,9 @@ %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/*.pc %changelog +* Wed Dec 17 2008 Kevin Fenzi - 20081215-2 +- Add libspiro-devel to build with spiro + * Tue Dec 16 2008 Kevin Fenzi - 20081215-1 - Upgrade to 20081215 - Build with cairo and pango From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 03:44:19 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:44:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 471542] Build fontforge with cairo, pango and spiro support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812180344.mBI3iJLs001509@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471542 Kevin Fenzi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-17 22:44:18 EDT --- libspiro is in, and fontforge is rebuilt with it: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1005627 And with that, I close this bug. ;) If you spot any problems feel free to re-open or file new bugs. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Thu Dec 18 04:07:55 2008 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:07:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Broken dependencies: xorg-x11-font-utils Message-ID: <20081218040755.432E71F81C9@releng2.fedora.phx.redhat.com> xorg-x11-font-utils has broken dependencies in the development tree: On ppc: 1:xorg-x11-font-utils-7.2-6.fc10.ppc requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 On x86_64: 1:xorg-x11-font-utils-7.2-6.fc10.x86_64 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 On i386: 1:xorg-x11-font-utils-7.2-6.fc10.i386 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 On ppc64: 1:xorg-x11-font-utils-7.2-6.fc10.ppc64 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 Please resolve this as soon as possible. From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Thu Dec 18 04:09:31 2008 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:09:31 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Broken dependencies: libXfontcache Message-ID: <20081218040931.D25C81F81C9@releng2.fedora.phx.redhat.com> libXfontcache has broken dependencies in the development tree: On ppc: libXfontcache-devel-1.0.4-5.fc9.ppc64 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 libXfontcache-devel-1.0.4-5.fc9.ppc64 requires xorg-x11-proto-devel On x86_64: libXfontcache-devel-1.0.4-5.fc9.x86_64 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 libXfontcache-devel-1.0.4-5.fc9.x86_64 requires xorg-x11-proto-devel On i386: libXfontcache-devel-1.0.4-5.fc9.i386 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 libXfontcache-devel-1.0.4-5.fc9.i386 requires xorg-x11-proto-devel On ppc64: libXfontcache-devel-1.0.4-5.fc9.ppc64 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 libXfontcache-devel-1.0.4-5.fc9.ppc64 requires xorg-x11-proto-devel Please resolve this as soon as possible. From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Thu Dec 18 04:09:52 2008 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:09:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Broken dependencies: fontforge Message-ID: <20081218040952.D5AF71F81C9@releng2.fedora.phx.redhat.com> fontforge has broken dependencies in the development tree: On ppc: fontforge-20081215-1.fc11.ppc64 requires xdg-utils On x86_64: fontforge-20081215-1.fc11.x86_64 requires xdg-utils On i386: fontforge-20081215-1.fc11.i386 requires xdg-utils On ppc64: fontforge-20081215-1.fc11.ppc64 requires xdg-utils Please resolve this as soon as possible. From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Thu Dec 18 04:09:58 2008 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:09:58 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Broken dependencies: libXfont Message-ID: <20081218040958.4175C1F8243@releng2.fedora.phx.redhat.com> libXfont has broken dependencies in the development tree: On ppc: libXfont-devel-1.3.3-1.fc10.ppc64 requires xorg-x11-proto-devel libXfont-devel-1.3.3-1.fc10.ppc64 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 On x86_64: libXfont-devel-1.3.3-1.fc10.x86_64 requires xorg-x11-proto-devel libXfont-devel-1.3.3-1.fc10.x86_64 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 On i386: libXfont-devel-1.3.3-1.fc10.i386 requires xorg-x11-proto-devel libXfont-devel-1.3.3-1.fc10.i386 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 On ppc64: libXfont-devel-1.3.3-1.fc10.ppc64 requires xorg-x11-proto-devel libXfont-devel-1.3.3-1.fc10.ppc64 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 Please resolve this as soon as possible. From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Thu Dec 18 04:11:36 2008 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:11:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Broken dependencies: libfontenc Message-ID: <20081218041136.AC6B81F81C9@releng2.fedora.phx.redhat.com> libfontenc has broken dependencies in the development tree: On ppc: libfontenc-devel-1.0.4-6.fc10.ppc64 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 On x86_64: libfontenc-devel-1.0.4-6.fc10.x86_64 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 On i386: libfontenc-devel-1.0.4-6.fc10.i386 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 On ppc64: libfontenc-devel-1.0.4-6.fc10.ppc64 requires xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0:0.99.2-3 Please resolve this as soon as possible. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 09:31:17 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 04:31:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476951] New: missing dependencies of emacs: xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: missing dependencies of emacs: xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476951 Summary: missing dependencies of emacs: xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: high Priority: medium Component: xorg-x11-fonts AssignedTo: xgl-maint at redhat.com ReportedBy: dnovotny at redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: xgl-maint at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora I got this mail today: emacs has broken dependencies in the development tree: On ppc: 1:emacs-22.3-2.fc11.ppc requires xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi On x86_64: 1:emacs-22.3-2.fc11.x86_64 requires xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi On i386: 1:emacs-22.3-2.fc11.i386 requires xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi On ppc64: 1:emacs-22.3-2.fc11.ppc64 requires xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi Please resolve this as soon as possible. does this package not exist in rawhide anymore? or is it renamed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 15:26:28 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:26:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812181526.mBIFQSWQ009223@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=368561 --- Comment #70 from Matt Castelein 2008-12-18 10:26:27 EDT --- Got the update today, looks perfect. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 20:38:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:38:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475661] Review Request: google-droid-fonts - The Droid font set In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812182038.mBIKcMnm027938@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475661 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on|475593 | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 20:38:21 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:38:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812182038.mBIKcLnQ027909@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|475661 |477044 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 20:38:34 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:38:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475661] Review Request: google-droid-fonts - The Droid font set In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812182038.mBIKcYQO000588@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475661 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |475593 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 20:38:33 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:38:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812182038.mBIKcXMU000560@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |475661 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 20:49:55 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:49:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477046] Please drop fonts-related directories from filesystem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812182049.mBIKnto3030105@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477046 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 20:49:07 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:49:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812182049.mBIKn7mN002214@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Summary|Deploy new font packaging |[Tracker] Deploy new font |guidelines for Fedora 11 |packaging guidelines for | |Fedora 11 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 20:56:00 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:56:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812182056.mBIKu0Xd031587@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477054 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 20:55:59 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:55:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477054] New: Rebuild against fontpackages-devel depending on fontpackages-filesystem Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Rebuild against fontpackages-devel depending on fontpackages-filesystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477054 Summary: Rebuild against fontpackages-devel depending on fontpackages-filesystem Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: fontconfig AssignedTo: besfahbo at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: besfahbo at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Blocks: 477044 Classification: Fedora As previously discussed, and approved by FPC and FESCO, common font packaging stuff has been moved to the fontpackages package. The filesystem maintainer has been asked to release the corresponding directories in bug #477046 Please rebuild fontconfig against fontpackages-devel to pick up the directory names it defines in macros, and depend on fontpackages-filesystem that owns the directories. I'll add /etc/fonts to fontpackages to avoid circular deps with fontconfig ASAP -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 21:05:27 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:05:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812182105.mBIL5RgY005716@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477055 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 21:05:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:05:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812182105.mBIL5gtY005759@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 21:16:13 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:16:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477058] New: Unreadable fonts in OpenOffice/Word and gftp (and other apps?) Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Unreadable fonts in OpenOffice/Word and gftp (and other apps?) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477058 Summary: Unreadable fonts in OpenOffice/Word and gftp (and other apps?) Product: Fedora Version: 10 Platform: i686 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: fontpackages AssignedTo: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net ReportedBy: j.curcio3 at verizon.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora Description of problem:Fonts in OpenOffice and gftp (and other apps?) not readable Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):Fedora 10 How reproducible:Very reproduceable with OpenOffice Word Steps to Reproduce: 1.Open Word document and look at menu items 2. 3. Actual results:Menu items are unreadable Expected results:Readable items Additional info:Attaching screen capture. Have seen behaviour in KDE and Gnome on two seperate machines ... Also attaching list of all RPM packages which have the name fonts in them below -> [jcurcio at johns-fedora10 ~]$ uname -a Linux johns-fedora10 2.6.27.7-134.fc10.i686 #1 SMP Mon Dec 1 22:42:50 EST 2008 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux [jcurcio at johns-fedora10 ~]$ vi it [jcurcio at johns-fedora10 ~]$ rpm -qa | grep fonts jomolhari-fonts-0.003-5.fc10.noarch lohit-fonts-punjabi-2.3.1-1.fc10.noarch khmeros-fonts-base-5.0-3.fc10.noarch xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-15-75dpi-7.2-6.fc9.noarch xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-14-75dpi-7.2-6.fc9.noarch lohit-fonts-hindi-2.3.1-1.fc10.noarch xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-9-100dpi-7.2-6.fc9.noarch dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch paktype-fonts-2.0-2.fc8.noarch lohit-fonts-tamil-2.3.1-1.fc10.noarch thaifonts-scalable-0.4.9-3.fc9.noarch smc-fonts-meera-04.1-1.fc10.noarch lohit-fonts-maithili-2.3.1-1.fc10.noarch bitmap-fonts-0.3-6.fc10.noarch cjkunifonts-uming-0.2.20080216.1-10.fc10.noarch VLGothic-fonts-20081029-1.fc10.noarch xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-15-100dpi-7.2-6.fc9.noarch xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-75dpi-7.2-6.fc9.noarch dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch lohit-fonts-bengali-2.3.1-1.fc10.noarch lklug-fonts-0.2.2-6.fc10.noarch abyssinica-fonts-1.0-2.fc8.noarch un-core-fonts-dotum-1.0.2-0.6.080608.fc10.noarch lohit-fonts-gujarati-2.3.1-1.fc10.noarch lohit-fonts-oriya-2.3.1-1.fc10.noarch urw-fonts-2.4-6.fc10.noarch msttcore-fonts-2.0-2.noarch xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi-7.2-6.fc9.noarch xorg-x11-fonts-Type1-7.2-6.fc9.noarch xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-9-75dpi-7.2-6.fc9.noarch xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi-7.2-6.fc9.noarch texlive-texmf-errata-fonts-2007-4.fc9.noarch kacst-fonts-2.0-1.fc10.noarch lohit-fonts-kannada-2.3.1-1.fc10.noarch texlive-texmf-fonts-2007-26.fc10.noarch liberation-fonts-1.04.92-1.fc10.noarch xorg-x11-fonts-75dpi-7.2-6.fc9.noarch xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-14-100dpi-7.2-6.fc9.noarch padauk-fonts-2.4-2.fc10.noarch stix-fonts-0.9-7.fc10.noarch lohit-fonts-telugu-2.3.1-1.fc10.noarch ghostscript-fonts-5.50-19.fc10.noarch xorg-x11-fonts-misc-7.2-6.fc9.noarch linux-libertine-fonts-4.1.8-1.fc10.noarch [jcurcio at johns-fedora10 ~]$ Thanks for your help :-) John C -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 21:51:10 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:51:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812182151.mBILpAuF009245@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055 Ville Skytt? changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot at l | |aposte.net) --- Comment #1 from Ville Skytt? 2008-12-18 16:51:09 EDT --- 1) Looks like simply dropping it would be a regression (I am not talking about the contents of the spec templates): "rpmdev-newspec foo-fonts" and thus e.g. "emacs foo-fonts.spec" (for a nonexistent foo-fonts.spec) would no longer result in any fonts spec template being used. Suggestion: make (symlink?) one of the templates from fontpackages to simply spectemplate-fonts.spec. And add logic to rpmdev-newspec so that if one does "rpmdev-newspec foo-fonts-multi" (or -single), it knows that the -multi/-simple is not part of the package name and knows how to drop it appropriately. 2) Also, seems that what rpmdev-newspec would replace in the templates contained in fontpackages would no longer be the right thing; at least FONTNAME has changed to thus making the current replacing done by newspec pretty much useless. Suggestion: either move back to plain FONTNAME or confirm that is the way it'll stay and I can adjust rpmdev-newspec accordingly. 3) The font spec templates in the fontpackages package use %{buildroot} syntax instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT which means rpmdev-newspec users can not easily opt to use shell style $RPM_... variables. Suggestion: switch the templates to shell style $RPM_... variables (see rpmdev-newspec source for a full list); rpmdev-newspec -m (or NEWSPEC_PREFER_MACROS=1 in newspec's config files) will just continue to work that way. 4) Indentation of stuff after all Foo: tags is different from every other spec template that we have in rpmdevtools. Suggestion: use same indentation levels and style (spaces only) as other spec templates in rpmdevtools for consistency and so that rpmdev-init.el will continue to do the right thing for those who prefer tabs over spaces for indentation. I'm about to roll a new rpmdevtools release for all active distros for which I maintain it anyway so this would be a good time to make those changes (and e.g. take care of the spectemplate-fonts.spec file conflict if what's suggested in 1) is implemented). But I'd like the above regressions be addressed before the transition. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 18 22:08:00 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:08:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473559] Replace bitstream-vera dependencies with dejavu dependencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812182208.mBIM80ZS016830@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473559 Adrian Reber changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #1 from Adrian Reber 2008-12-18 17:07:59 EDT --- Replaced bitstream-vera-fonts with dejavu-fonts-sans-mono in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 19 02:00:45 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:00:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477054] Rebuild against fontpackages-devel depending on fontpackages-filesystem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812190200.mBJ20jUq020234@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477054 --- Comment #1 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-18 21:00:44 EDT --- Nicolas, fee free to do that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 19 09:32:48 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 04:32:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 471103] Font spacing wrong in menus and text In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812190932.mBJ9WmCL019831@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471103 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-19 04:32:47 EDT --- openoffice.org-2.4.2-18.3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openoffice.org-2.4.2-18.3.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 19 13:33:21 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:33:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477058] Unreadable fonts in OpenOffice/Word and gftp (and other apps?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812191333.mBJDXLeQ009123@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477058 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-19 08:33:20 EDT --- Since you do not have the fontpackages rpm installed I don't see how this can be constructed as a fontpackages bug. Please reopen against the right component when you've found out what your problem was. If it fails for every app with every font this is most probably not a font problem but an xorg or fontconfig problem. In any way with so little info and without even a screenshot no one can really help you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 19 17:25:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:25:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477213] New: vte has broken backward compatibility without changing the interface number Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: vte has broken backward compatibility without changing the interface number https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477213 Summary: vte has broken backward compatibility without changing the interface number Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: pango AssignedTo: besfahbo at redhat.com ReportedBy: skasal at redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: besfahbo at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora libpango has enhanced the interface without incrementing the interface number. Observe: $ gnome-terminal gnome-terminal: symbol lookup error: /usr/lib/libvte.so.9: undefined symbol: pango_layout_get_baseline $ rpm -q gnome-terminal vte pango gnome-terminal-2.21.91.1-1.fc9.i386 vte-0.19.3-1.fc11.i386 pango-1.19.3-3.fc9.i386 Yes, this is a weird mix of versions, but anyway, automatic dependences should work even in this case. libvte imports symbol pango_layout_get_baseline from libpango-1.0, and rightfully supposed that the automaticaly generated libpango-1.0.so.0 require ensures that it will be available. This symbol was not available in previous versions of libpango. When the new function was added to the pango API, the interface number should have been incremented to indicate the enhancement of the API. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 19 19:40:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:40:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477213] vte has broken backward compatibility without changing the interface number In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812191940.mBJJerej019075@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477213 Behdad Esfahbod changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #1 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-19 14:40:52 EDT --- * Fri Dec 19 2008 Behdad Esfahbod 0.19.4-3 - Add gtk2/pango/glib2 required versions - Resolves #477213 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 19 19:50:25 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:50:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477213] vte has broken backward compatibility without changing the interface number In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812191950.mBJJoPWO020896@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477213 Behdad Esfahbod changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|pango |vte -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 19 21:18:34 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:18:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812192118.mBJLIYDK030337@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot at l | |aposte.net) | --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-19 16:18:33 EDT --- I really know next to nothing about rpmdevtools, which is just a way to expose a spec template library to me, and it would have been great to have those remarks before the stuff was approved FPC and FESCO side and set in stone. (there was more than a month of public RFC phase) Anyway > 1) Looks like simply dropping it would be a regression? There are two templates because reviews show there are two different use cases and they really are different patterns that do not fit in a single template > 2) Also, seems that what rpmdev-newspec would replace in the templates > contained in fontpackages would no longer be the right thing; at least > FONTNAME has changed to I've tried to keep things consistent and put stuff to be replaced in brackets yes. If there is some other convention that would make it easier for you, please say so. > 3) The font spec templates in the fontpackages package use %{buildroot} syntax > instead of $RPM_BUILD_ROOT The rpm devs have announced they'll be internalising buildroot creation so anything that tries to manipulate it from scripts is doomed mid-term anyway. And %{buildroot} is both valid and more consistent with the rest of the template > 4) Indentation of stuff after all Foo: tags is different from every other spec > template that we have in rpmdevtools. I don't much care about this part and I doubt anyone will complain if I change it now So I can change 4. For the rest if it's too much of a problem to you I can put the templates somewhere else in the filesystem. Bearing in mind that they are the new official Fedora templates, so the current rpmdevtools template will put induce packagers into doing stuff that will be blocked on review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From tibbs at fedoraproject.org Fri Dec 19 21:39:41 2008 From: tibbs at fedoraproject.org (=?utf-8?b?SmFzb24g44OG44Kj44OT44OE?=) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:39:41 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/mgopen-fonts/devel mgopen-fonts.spec,1.7,1.8 Message-ID: <20081219213941.9DD6D7012F@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: tibbs Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/mgopen-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv32547 Modified Files: mgopen-fonts.spec Log Message: * Fri Dec 19 2008 Jason L Tibbitts III - 0.20050515-8 - It was decided that the license for these fonts is sufficiently different from Vera to require a different license tag. Index: mgopen-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/mgopen-fonts/devel/mgopen-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.7 retrieving revision 1.8 diff -u -r1.7 -r1.8 --- mgopen-fonts.spec 3 Mar 2008 13:55:53 -0000 1.7 +++ mgopen-fonts.spec 19 Dec 2008 21:39:11 -0000 1.8 @@ -6,10 +6,10 @@ Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 0.%{upstream_date} -Release: 7%{?dist} +Release: 8%{?dist} Summary: Truetype greek fonts Group: User Interface/X -License: Bitstream Vera +License: MgOpen URL: http://www.ellak.gr/fonts/mgopen/ Source0: %{archivename}-%{upstream_date}.tar.gz # Upstream tarball is not versioned http://www.ellak.gr/fonts/mgopen/files/%{archivename}.tar.gz @@ -64,6 +64,10 @@ %changelog +* Fri Dec 19 2008 Jason L Tibbitts III - 0.20050515-8 +- It was decided that the license for these fonts is sufficiently different + from Vera to require a different license tag. + * Mon Mar 3 2008 Sarantis Paskalis 0.20050515-7 - Drop ancient Conflicts < fontconfig-2.3.93 - Convert LICENCE file to UTF-8 From nim at fedoraproject.org Fri Dec 19 22:38:40 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:38:40 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/fontpackages/devel .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 fontpackages.spec, 1.1, 1.2 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.2, 1.3 Message-ID: <20081219223840.C8AE37012F@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv13901/devel Modified Files: .cvsignore fontpackages.spec import.log sources Log Message: 1.12 Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- .cvsignore 15 Dec 2008 22:18:45 -0000 1.2 +++ .cvsignore 19 Dec 2008 22:38:08 -0000 1.3 @@ -1 +1 @@ -fontpackages-1.11.tar.bz2 +fontpackages-1.12.tar.bz2 Index: fontpackages.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel/fontpackages.spec,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- fontpackages.spec 15 Dec 2008 22:18:45 -0000 1.1 +++ fontpackages.spec 19 Dec 2008 22:38:08 -0000 1.2 @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ %define rpmmacrodir %{_sysconfdir}/rpm/ Name: fontpackages -Version: 1.11 +Version: 1.12 Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages @@ -53,12 +53,14 @@ rm -fr %{buildroot} # Pull macros out of macros.fonts and emulate them during install -for dir in fontbasedir fontconfig_confdir fontconfig_templatedir ; do +for dir in fontbasedir fontconfig_masterdir \ + fontconfig_confdir fontconfig_templatedir ; do export _${dir}=$(rpm --eval $(%{__grep} -E "^%_${dir}\b" \ macros/macros.fonts | %{__awk} '{ print $2 }')) done install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}${_fontbasedir} \ + %{buildroot}${_fontconfig_masterdir} \ %{buildroot}${_fontconfig_confdir} \ %{buildroot}${_fontconfig_templatedir} \ %{buildroot}%{spectemplatedir} \ @@ -69,6 +71,7 @@ cat < %{name}-%{version}.files %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %dir ${_fontbasedir} +%dir ${_fontconfig_masterdir} %dir ${_fontconfig_confdir} %dir ${_fontconfig_templatedir} EOF @@ -88,6 +91,10 @@ %changelog +* Fri Dec 19 2008 Nicolas Mailhot +- 1.12-1 +??? Add another macro to allow building fontconfig without cycling + * Wed Dec 10 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.11-1 ??? Add actual fedorahosted references Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 15 Dec 2008 22:18:45 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 19 Dec 2008 22:38:08 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ fontpackages-1_11-1_fc11:HEAD:fontpackages-1.11-1.fc11.src.rpm:1229379496 +fontpackages-1_12-1_fc11:HEAD:fontpackages-1.12-1.fc11.src.rpm:1229726060 Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel/sources,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- sources 15 Dec 2008 22:18:45 -0000 1.2 +++ sources 19 Dec 2008 22:38:08 -0000 1.3 @@ -1 +1 @@ -362046a39434fe95ea9c9ab4ea4880ba fontpackages-1.11.tar.bz2 +f0668a3a60d21ec16ecf89c8c192d899 fontpackages-1.12.tar.bz2 From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 01:10:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:10:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477058] Unreadable fonts in OpenOffice/Word and gftp (and other apps?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812200110.mBK1AU6D005926@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477058 --- Comment #2 from John Curcio 2008-12-19 20:10:29 EDT --- Your attitude SUCKS! Rather than trying to assist me in further clarifying where the problem is you chose to simply close the issue and leave it entirely up to me to debug the issue. And since I told you that I had attached a screenshot, either you missed something or I didn't attach it properly ... rather that attempt to look further or maybe give someone the benefit of the doubt you instead chose to throw your hands in the air and be rude. Thanks for your complete lack of assistance. I guess it's good thing you're not in a service industry! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From Matt_Domsch at dell.com Sat Dec 20 03:00:55 2008 From: Matt_Domsch at dell.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:00:55 -0600 Subject: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2008-12-17 x86_64 Message-ID: <20081220030055.GA22944@mock.linuxdev.us.dell.com> Fedora Rawhide-in-Mock Build Results for x86_64 This is a full rebuild, using systems running rawhide as of 12/17 to rebuild all packages in rawhide on 12/17. Full logs at http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/ Total packages: 6658 Number failed to build: 411 Number expected to fail due to ExclusiveArch or ExcludeArch: 34 Leaving: 377 Of those expected to have worked... Without a bug filed: 376 ---------------------------------- DeviceKit-disks-002-0.git20080720.fc10 (build/make) davidz Macaulay2-1.1-2.fc10 (build/make) rdieter PyYAML-3.06-2.fc11 (build/make) jeckersb R-BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2-1.2.0-5 (build/make) pingou R-BSgenome.Dmelanogaster.FlyBase.r51-1.3.1-3 (build/make) pingou R-hgu95av2probe-2.0.0-1.fc9 (build/make) pingou R-lmtest-0.9-2.fc10 (build/make) orion R-pls-2.1-2.fc9 (build/make) pingou Sprog-0.14-13.fc9 (build/make) ghenry Terminal-0.2.8.3-1.fc10 (build/make) kevin Thunar-0.9.0-4.fc9 (build/make) kevin,pertusus,cwickert UnihanDb-5.1.0-7.fc10 (build/make) dchen,i18n-team WebKit-1.0.0-0.15.svn37790.fc10 (build/make) pgordon,mtasaka abe-1.1-7.fc9 (build/make) wart afflib-3.3.4-4.fc10 (build/make) kwizart alltray-0.70-2.fc9 (build/make) denis almanah-0.5.0-1.fc11 (build/make) lokthare alsa-oss-1.0.17-1.fc10 (build/make) jima apr-1.3.3-1.fc10 (build/make) jorton,oliver,bojan ardour-2.7-1.fc11 (build/make) green,jwrdegoede asterisk-1.6.1-0.5beta2.fc11 (build/make) jcollie atari++-1.55-2.fc11 (build/make) sharkcz audacity-1.3.5-0.8.beta.fc10 (build/make) gemi,mschwendt,dtimms autotrace-0.31.1-18.fc10 (build/make) qspencer,roozbeh avant-window-navigator-0.2.6-13.fc11 (build/make) sindrepb,ngompa avr-binutils-2.18-2.fc9 (patch_fuzz) tnorth,trondd awn-extras-applets-0.2.6-6.fc10 (build/make) phuang ax25-apps-0.0.6-2.fc9 (build/make) bjensen,sindrepb,sconklin,dp67 balsa-2.3.26-2.fc10 (build/make) pawsa bigboard-0.6.4-3.fc11 (build/make) walters bitgtkmm-0.4.0-4.fc10 (build/make) rvinyard blackbox-0.70.1-11 (build/make) thias bmpx-0.40.14-7.fc10 (build/make) akahl boo-0.8.1.2865-4.fc9 (build/make) pfj bzflag-2.0.12-3.fc10 (build/make) nphilipp bzr-gtk-0.95.0-2.fc10 (build/make) toshio,shahms,toshio cdo-1.0.8-2.fc9 (build/make) edhill classpathx-jaf-1.0-12.fc10 (build/make) devrim,dwalluck clutter-0.8.2-1.fc10 (build/make) allisson compat-db-4.6.21-5.fc10 (build/make) jnovy,pmatilai compat-gcc-32-3.2.3-64 (build/make) jakub compat-gcc-34-3.4.6-9 (patch_fuzz) jakub compiz-0.7.8-9.fc11 (build/make) krh compizconfig-backend-gconf-0.7.8-1.fc11 (build/make) izhar compizconfig-python-0.7.8-2.fc11 (build/make) izhar conexus-0.5.3-4.fc9 (build/make) rvinyard conexusmm-0.5.0-3.fc7 (build/make) rvinyard cook-2.32-1.fc10 (build/make) gemi coredumper-1.2.1-6.fc10 (build/make) rakesh cowbell-0.3-0.svn34.4.fc10 (build/make) sindrepb cpan2rpm-2.028-2.fc8.1 (build/make) ghenry,perl-sig csound-5.03.0-16.fc9 (build/make) dcbw,pfj ctemplate-0.91-3.fc10 (build/make) rakesh cups-1.4-0.b1.4.fc11 (build/make) twaugh dbmail-2.2.9-2.fc10 (build/make) bjohnson desktop-data-model-1.2.5-2.fc11 (build/make) walters,otaylor devhelp-0.22-2.fc11 (build/make) mbarnes devilspie-0.22-2.fc9 (build/make) svahl digitemp-3.5.0-3.fc9 (build/make) robert directfb-1.2.6-3.fc10 (build/make) thias,kwizart distcache-1.4.5-17 (build/make) jorton dnssec-tools-1.4.1-2.fc10 (build/make) hardaker dx-4.4.4-7.fc10 (build/make) rathann ember-0.5.4-5.fc11 (build/make) atorkhov,wart emerald-0.7.6-2.fc10 (build/make) turki,thias,jwilson enlightenment-0.16.999.043-3.fc10 (build/make) stalwart etherboot-5.4.4-7.fc11 (build/make) ehabkost,glommer evolution-brutus-1.2.27-2.fc10 (build/make) bpepple,colding evolution-exchange-2.25.1-1.fc11 (build/make) mbarnes evolution-remove-duplicates-0.0.4-1.fc10 (build/make) salimma evolution-sharp-0.18.1-1.fc10 (build/make) mbarnes expect-5.43.0-15.fc10 (build/make) vcrhonek file-roller-2.24.2-1.fc10 (build/make) caillon firewalk-5.0-2.fc9 (build/make) sindrepb flasm-1.62-4.fc9 (build/make) kkofler,pertusus fmt-ptrn-1.3.17-2.fc10 (build/make) mikep fpc-2.2.2-3.fc10 (build/make) joost,tbzatek freealut-1.1.0-6.fc9 (build/make) awjb freetds-0.82-2.fc10 (build/make) buc freetennis-0.4.8-14.fc10 (build/make) rjones g3data-1.5.1-8.fc9 (build/make) jspaleta gauche-0.8.13-2.fc10 (build/make) gemi gauche-gl-0.4.4-3.fc9 (build/make) gemi gauche-gtk-0.4.1-17.fc9 (build/make) gemi gcalctool-5.25.1-2.fc11 (build/make) rstrode gcombust-0.1.55-13 (build/make) thias gconf-cleaner-0.0.2-6.fc10 (build/make) splinux gconfmm26-2.24.0-1.fc10 (build/make) denis gdbm-1.8.0-29.fc10 (build/make) kasal gdmap-0.7.5-6.fc6 (build/make) splinux gengetopt-2.22.1-1.fc10 (build/make) rishi geronimo-specs-1.0-2.M2.fc10 (build/make) fnasser ggz-gtk-client-0.0.14.1-1.fc9 (build/make) bpepple,rdieter ghc-gtk2hs-0.9.13-6.20081108.fc11 (build/make) bos,haskell-sig,petersen gnome-applets-2.25.1-4.fc11 (build/make) rstrode gnome-compiz-manager-0.10.4-6.fc11 (build/make) jpmahowa gnome-desktop-sharp-2.24.0-3.fc10 (build/make) laxathom gnome-do-0.6.1.0-2.fc10 (build/make) sindrepb,salimma,sindrepb gnome-panel-2.24.1-6.fc11 (build/make) rstrode gnome-power-manager-2.24.2-2.fc11 (build/make) rhughes,rhughes gnome-python2-desktop-2.24.0-5.fc11 (build/make) mbarnes gnome-specimen-0.3-3.fc11 (build/make) splinux gnome-speech-0.4.22-1.fc10 (build/make) davidz gnome-system-monitor-2.24.1-1.fc10 (build/make) ssp gnome-themes-extras-2.22.0-2.fc9 (build/make) mwiriadi,mwiriadi gnome-web-photo-0.3-12.fc10 (build/make) hadess,mpg gok-2.25.2-1.fc11 (build/make) davidz gpm-1.20.5-1.fc10 (build/make) zprikryl,pertusus gpp4-1.0.4-11.fc11 (build/make) timfenn grub2-1.98-0.3.20080827svn.fc10 (build/make) lkundrak gstreamer-java-1.0-1.fc11 (build/make) lfarkas gstreamer-plugins-base-0.10.21-2.fc10 (build/make) ajax gthumb-2.10.10-3.fc10 (build/make) behdad gtkspell-2.0.13-1.fc10 (build/make) mbarnes guilt-0.30-2.fc10 (build/make) sandeen gwget-0.99-8.fc10 (build/make) cwickert haddock09-0.9-3.fc10 (build/make) bos,haskell-sig,petersen hal-0.5.12-12.20081027git.fc10 (build/make) rhughes happy-1.18.2-1.fc11 (build/make) bos,haskell-sig,petersen hdf5-1.8.1-2.fc10 (build/make) orion,pertusus hercules-3.05-7.20081009cvs.fc10 (build/make) thias hfsutils-3.2.6-14.fc9 (patch_fuzz) dwmw2 iasl-20061109-4.fc9 (build/make) till ibus-chewing-0.1.1.20081023-2.fc11 (build/make) phuang,i18n-team icecream-0.8.0-11.20080117svn.fc9 (build/make) michich icewm-1.2.35-4.fc10 (build/make) gilboa,pertusus imsettings-0.105.1-2.fc10 (build/make) tagoh,i18n-team incollector-1.0-6.fc9.1 (build/make) kurzawa ini4j-0.3.2-4.fc10 (build/make) victorv initng-conf-gtk-0.5.1-4.fc9 (build/make) danielm initscripts-8.86-1 (build/make) notting insight-6.8-4.fc11 (build/make) monnerat,jkratoch ipa-1.2.0-3.fc11 (build/make) rcritten,simo,mnagy jakarta-commons-el-1.0-9.4.fc10 (build/make) fnasser java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-8.b14.fc11 (build/make) langel,lkundrak,dbhole,langel,mjw javahelp2-2.0.05-5.fc10 (build/make) jtulach,fitzsim jline-0.9.94-0.2.fc10 (build/make) mwringe jsr-305-0-0.1.20080824svn.fc10 (build/make) jjames junitperf-1.9.1-2.2.fc10 (build/make) mwringe kaya-0.5.1-1.fc10 (build/make) s4504kr kde-l10n-4.1.3-1.fc10 (build/make) than,rdieter,kkofler,tuxbrewr,ltinkl kdebluetooth-0.2-3.fc10 (build/make) gilboa,scop kdetv-0.8.9-10.fc9 (build/make) subhodip kudzu-1.2.85-2 (build/make) notting ladspa-1.12-9.fc9 (build/make) thomasvs ladspa-swh-plugins-0.4.15-12.fc9 (build/make) green lam-7.1.4-1.fc10 (build/make) dledford lasi-1.1.0-2.fc10 (build/make) orion ldns-1.4.0-1.fc11 (build/make) pwouters libXTrap-1.0.0-6.fc10 (build/make) ssp libXfontcache-1.0.4-5.fc9 (build/make) ssp,fonts-sig libXp-1.0.0-11.fc9 (build/make) ssp libbonoboui-2.24.0-1.fc10 (build/make) rstrode libcompizconfig-0.7.8-1.fc11 (build/make) izhar libctl-3.0.2-6.fc9 (build/make) edhill libdv-1.0.0-5.fc10 (build/make) jwilson libfakekey-0.1-1.fc10 (build/make) mccann libgconf-java-2.12.4-11.fc10 (build/make) kasal libgii-1.0.2-6.fc9 (build/make) kwizart libgtk-java-2.8.7-8.fc10 (build/make) kasal,pmuldoon,swagiaal libgweather-2.25.2-2.fc11 (build/make) mclasen libibcommon-1.1.0-1.fc10 (build/make) dledford libibmad-1.2.0-1.fc10 (build/make) dledford libibumad-1.2.0-1.fc10 (build/make) dledford libidn-0.6.14-8 (build/make) jorton libiec61883-1.1.0-5.fc10 (build/make) jwilson libjpeg-6b-43.fc10 (build/make) tgl liblqr-1-0.1.0-5.fc9 (build/make) ics libmatheval-1.1.5-2.fc9 (patch_fuzz) edhill libnss-mysql-1.5-7.fc9 (build/make) ondrejj libopensync-0.36-3.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-evolution2-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-file-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-gnokii-0.36-2.fc10 (build/make) cheese,awjb libopensync-plugin-google-calendar-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-gpe-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-irmc-0.36-2.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-kdepim-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-moto-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-opie-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-palm-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-python-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-syncml-0.35-4.fc10 (build/make) cheese libopensync-plugin-vformat-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libpaper-1.1.23-3.fc10 (build/make) spot libpolyxmass-0.9.1-2.fc9 (build/make) awjb libpqxx-2.6.8-10.fc9 (build/make) awjb,rdieter librra-0.11.1-1.fc9 (build/make) awjb,abompard librsync-0.9.7-12.fc9 (build/make) robert librx-1.5-10.fc9 (build/make) spot libsilc-1.1.7-2.fc10 (build/make) nosnilmot,wtogami,nosnilmot libsndfile-1.0.17-6.fc10 (build/make) ixs libsoup-2.25.2-1.fc11 (build/make) mbarnes,danw libstroke-0.5.1-17.fc9 (build/make) chitlesh libtar-1.2.11-11.fc10 (build/make) huzaifas,huzaifas libthai-0.1.9-4.fc9 (build/make) behdad libwvstreams-4.5-1.fc11 (build/make) ovasik libzzub-0.2.3-12.fc9 (patch_fuzz) orphan lilypond-2.11.57-2.fc11 (build/make) limb linphone-2.1.1-1.fc9 (build/make) rakesh linpsk-0.9-4.fc10 (build/make) bjensen,bjensen,sindrepb,sconklin,dp67 linux-atm-2.5.0-5 (build/make) dwmw2 lirc-0.8.4a-1.fc10 (build/make) jwilson,hadess,jwilson logjam-4.5.3-25.fc10 (build/make) spot m17n-lib-1.5.3-1.fc10 (build/make) pnemade,i18n-team,petersen maildrop-2.0.4-6.fc9 (build/make) athimm mapnik-0.5.2-0.7.svn738.fc10 (build/make) rezso,snecker maven-scm-1.0-0.2.b3.1.6.fc10 (build/make) dbhole maven-shared-1.0-4.6.fc10 (build/make) dbhole maven2-2.0.4-10.15.fc10 (build/make) dbhole mboxgrep-0.7.9-6.fc10 (build/make) ixs mesa-7.2-0.15.fc10 (build/make) ajax,ajax metacity-2.25.34-1.fc11 (build/make) ssp modello-1.0-0.1.a8.4.4.fc10 (build/make) mwringe monkey-bubble-0.4.0-9.fc9 (build/make) jwrdegoede monodoc-2.0-5.fc10 (build/make) pfj msynctool-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb nautilus-python-0.5.1-1.fc10 (build/make) trondd nautilus-share-0.7.2-13.fc10 (build/make) orphan nco-3.9.5-2.fc10 (build/make) edhill,pertusus net-tools-1.60-91.fc10 (build/make) rvokal,zprikryl netcdf-decoders-5.0.0-1.fc9 (build/make) orion,pertusus netcdf-perl-1.2.3-7.fc9 (build/make) orion,perl-sig,pertusus newscache-1.2-0.6.rc6.fc9 (build/make) buc nfs4-acl-tools-0.3.2-2.fc9 (patch_fuzz) steved nip2-7.14.5-1.fc10 (build/make) agoode notification-daemon-0.4.0-1.fc11 (build/make) davidz nss_ldap-261-4.fc10 (build/make) nalin nut-2.2.2-3.fc10 (build/make) mhlavink octave-forge-20080831-2.fc10 (build/make) qspencer,orion,alexlan openal-0.0.9-0.15.20060204cvs.fc9 (patch_fuzz) awjb openjade-1.3.2-31.fc9 (build/make) ovasik,rvokal openjpeg-1.3-2.fc9 (patch_fuzz) seg orpie-1.5.1-4.fc10 (build/make) xris osiv-2.0.0-0.4.beta.fc9 (build/make) edhill pam-1.0.2-2.fc10 (build/make) tmraz pam_keyring-0.0.9-2.fc9 (build/make) denis pam_mount-0.49-1.fc10 (build/make) till pan-0.133-1.fc10 (build/make) adalloz,mpeters paprefs-0.9.7-3.fc10 (build/make) emoret papyrus-0.7.1-3.fc9 (build/make) rvinyard perl-5.10.0-52.fc11 (build/make) mmaslano,spot,corsepiu,rnorwood,kasal perl-Archive-Any-0.093-3.fc9 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-BSD-Resource-1.28-6.fc9 (build/make) kasal,rnorwood,mmaslano perl-Class-Autouse-1.29-3.fc9 (build/make) corsepiu,perl-sig,laxathom perl-Class-Inspector-1.23-1.fc10 (build/make) corsepiu,perl-sig,laxathom perl-Data-ICal-0.13-3.fc10 (build/make) corsepiu,perl-sig perl-Data-Stag-0.11-1.fc10 (build/make) alexlan,perl-sig perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl-1.04-2.fc10 (build/make) corsepiu,perl-sig perl-Gnome2-GConf-1.044-4.fc10 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-Gtk2-Notify-0.04-3.fc9 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-HTTP-Proxy-0.20-2.fc9 (build/make) spot,perl-sig perl-IPC-Shareable-0.60-6.fc9 (needs_perl_ExtUtils_MakeMaker) spot,perl-sig perl-JSON-Any-1.16-3.fc9 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-Log-Trivial-0.31-2.fc9 (build/make) orion perl-Module-CPANTS-Analyse-0.82-2.fc10 (build/make) berrange perl-Moose-0.62-1.fc11 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-MooseX-Params-Validate-0.05-1.fc10 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-Net-SSLeay-1.35-1.fc10 (build/make) pghmcfc,perl-sig,jpo,kasal perl-PDL-2.4.4-1.fc11 (build/make) kasal,orion,rnorwood,mmaslano perl-POE-Component-SNMP-1.07-3.fc9 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule-0.28-2.fc9 (build/make) steve,perl-sig perl-RRD-Simple-1.43-3.fc9 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-Regexp-Assemble-0.34-1.fc11 (build/make) iarnell,perl-sig perl-SVN-Mirror-0.73-3.fc9 (build/make) iburrell,perl-sig perl-Sys-Virt-0.1.2-3.fc9 (build/make) steve,perl-sig,berrange perl-Test-Inline-2.208-3.fc10 (build/make) corsepiu,perl-sig,laxathom perl-Test-WWW-Mechanize-Catalyst-0.42-1.fc10 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-Test-Warn-0.10-3.fc9 (build/make) spot,perl-sig perl-WWW-Mechanize-1.34-1.fc10 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-XML-LibXSLT-1.66-2.fc10 (build/make) kasal,perl-sig,shishz perl-XML-Smart-1.6.9-1.fc10 (build/make) lkundrak perl-bioperl-1.5.2_102-13.fc10 (build/make) alexlan,perl-sig perl-bioperl-run-1.5.2_100-3.fc9 (build/make) alexlan,perl-sig pidgin-guifications-2.16-1.fc10 (build/make) rvokal,wtogami,nosnilmot pigment-0.3.11-1.fc10 (build/make) thias pinot-0.89-1.fc10 (build/make) drago01 player-2.1.1-5.fc10 (build/make) timn,makghosh plexus-appserver-1.0-0.2.a5.2.6.fc10 (build/make) dbhole plexus-cdc-1.0-0.2.a4.1.6.fc10 (build/make) dbhole plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.5.3.fc10 (build/make) pcheung plexus-maven-plugin-1.2-2.4.fc10 (build/make) dbhole plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.2.a9.1.6.fc10 (build/make) dbhole plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.2.b4.2.11.fc10 (build/make) dbhole plplot-5.9.0-4.svn8985.fc11 (build/make) orion polyxmass-bin-0.9.7-2.fc8 (build/make) awjb popt-1.13-4.fc10 (build/make) robert,pmatilai presto-utils-0.3.3-2.fc10 (build/make) jdieter protobuf-2.0.2-5.fc11 (build/make) abbot pyrenamer-0.6.0-2.fc11 (build/make) lokthare python-bibtex-1.2.4-5.fc11 (build/make) zkota python-gtkextra-1.1.0-3.fc10 (build/make) mitr python-openid-2.2.1-1.fc10 (build/make) jcollie python-peak-rules-0.5a1.dev-4.2582.fc11 (build/make) lmacken python-reportlab-2.1-4.fc11 (build/make) bpepple python-storm-0.13-2.fc10 (build/make) salimma pywbxml-0.1-3.fc9 (build/make) awjb q-7.11-2.fc10 (build/make) gemi qemu-0.9.1-10.fc10 (patch_fuzz) dwmw2 qemu-launcher-1.7.4-4.fc9 (build/make) nboyle qgis-0.11.0-4.fc10 (build/make) silfreed,rezso qgo-1.5.4r2-1.fc9 (build/make) kaboom qpidc-0.3.722557-1.fc10 (build/make) aconway,nsantos quake3-1.34-0.9.rc4.fc9 (patch_fuzz) laxathom quesa-1.8-1.fc9 (build/make) ajax rasqal-0.9.15-1.fc9 (build/make) thomasvs redhat-menus-10.0.1-1.fc11 (build/make) rstrode regexxer-0.9-3.fc9 (build/make) cwickert rekall-2.4.6-5.fc10 (build/make) spot ristretto-0.0.21-1.fc11 (build/make) cwickert rss-glx-0.8.1.p-20.fc10 (build/make) nphilipp ruby-hpricot-0.6-2.fc9 (build/make) mtasaka ruby-rpm-1.2.3-4.fc9 (build/make) lutter,stahnma rxtx-2.1-0.2.7r2.fc11 (build/make) lfarkas sagator-1.1.1-0.beta1.fc10 (build/make) ondrejj sane-backends-1.0.19-12.fc10 (build/make) nphilipp scidavis-0.1.3-2.fc10 (build/make) tanguy scim-1.4.7-35.fc10 (build/make) phuang,i18n-team,petersen scrip-1.4-9.fc8 (build/make) edhill sepostgresql-8.3.5-2.1183.fc10 (build/make) kaigai seq24-0.8.7-13.fc10 (patch_fuzz) green simdock-1.2-3.fc10 (build/make) terjeros skychart-3.0.1.5-3.20081026svn.fc11 (build/make) lkundrak,mmahut smarteiffel-2.3-2.fc9 (build/make) gemi soundtouch-1.3.1-10.fc9 (build/make) jwrdegoede sudo-1.6.9p17-2.fc10 (build/make) mildew,kzak sugar-0.83.3-4.fc11 (build/make) mpg,johnp,bernie,morgan,tomeu,erikos sundials-2.3.0-6.fc9 (build/make) jpye swfdec-gnome-2.24.0-2.fc10 (build/make) bpepple synce-software-manager-0.9.0-10.fc9 (build/make) awjb taglib-sharp-2.0.3.0-7.fc11 (build/make) spot tcl-snack-2.2.10-6.fc10 (build/make) spot thunar-archive-plugin-0.2.4-5.fc10 (build/make) cwickert thunar-media-tags-plugin-0.1.2-4.fc9 (build/make) cwickert thunar-shares-0.16-1.fc10 (build/make) cwickert,kevin thunar-volman-0.2.0-2.fc9 (build/make) cwickert,kevin tiger-3.2.1-8.fc9 (patch_fuzz) abompard tightvnc-1.5.0-0.9.20081120svn3200.fc11 (build/make) atkac tkimg-1.4-0.1.20081115svn.fc11 (build/make) sergiopr totem-2.24.3-3.fc11 (build/make) hadess,firewing tracker-0.6.6-4.fc11 (build/make) deji tremulous-1.1.0-6.fc9 (build/make) pgordon,pgordon uim-1.5.3-1.fc10 (build/make) tagoh,i18n-team unixODBC-2.2.12-9.fc10 (build/make) tgl valgrind-3.3.0-4 (build/make) jakub vdr-1.6.0-15.fc11 (build/make) scop,vpv vdr-ttxtsubs-0.0.5-6.fc11 (build/make) scop vdrift-20080805-2.fc10 (build/make) limb vnc-4.1.2-35.fc10 (patch_fuzz) atkac wammu-0.28-1.fc10 (build/make) laxathom wgrib2-1.7.2b-1.fc10 (build/make) orion,pertusus widelands-0-0.13.Build13.fc11 (build/make) karlik worminator-3.0R2.1-8.fc9 (build/make) jwrdegoede ws-commons-util-1.0.1-10.fc10 (build/make) green,overholt wxGTK-2.8.9-3.fc11 (build/make) mattdm,sharkcz xastir-1.9.4-5.fc10 (build/make) lucilanga,bjensen xbacklight-1.1-2.fc9 (build/make) salimma xcb-proto-1.2-3.fc11 (build/make) ajax xdx-2.4-2.fc9 (build/make) bjensen,sindrepb,sconklin xfburn-0.3.91-2.fc11 (build/make) cwickert,denis xfce4-notes-plugin-1.6.3-1.fc11 (build/make) cwickert xfce4-places-plugin-1.1.0-3.fc10 (build/make) cwickert,kevin xfce4-verve-plugin-0.3.6-1.fc11 (build/make) cwickert,kevin xfce4-volstatus-icon-0.1.0-3.fc9 (build/make) cwickert,kevin xfce4-xkb-plugin-0.5.2-1.fc11 (build/make) cwickert xfdesktop-4.4.2-6.fc10 (build/make) kevin xlhtml-0.5-8.fc9 (build/make) abompard xmlrpc3-3.0-2.9.fc10 (build/make) overholt,akurtakov xmms-cdread-0.14-13.fc9 (build/make) jsoeterb xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.9.0-62.fc10 (build/make) xgl-maint xorg-x11-drv-i810-2.5.0-3.fc11 (build/make) xgl-maint xorg-x11-drv-openchrome-0.2.903-2.fc11 (build/make) xavierb xorg-x11-server-1.5.3-6.fc10 (build/make) xgl-maint xosview-1.8.3-13.20080301cvs.fc10 (build/make) terjeros xscorch-0.2.0-12.fc8 (build/make) mgarski zsh-4.3.4-8.fc9 (patch_fuzz) james With bugs filed: 1 ---------------------------------- libFoundation-1.1.3-11.fc9 [u'440564 ASSIGNED'] (build/make) athimm ---------------------------------- Packages by owner: abbot: protobuf abompard: librra,tiger,xlhtml aconway: qpidc adalloz: pan agoode: nip2 ajax: gstreamer-plugins-base,mesa,mesa,quesa,xcb-proto akahl: bmpx akurtakov: xmlrpc3 alexlan: octave-forge,perl-Data-Stag,perl-bioperl,perl-bioperl-run allisson: clutter athimm: libFoundation,maildrop atkac: tightvnc,vnc atorkhov: ember awjb: freealut,libopensync,libopensync-plugin-evolution2,libopensync-plugin-file,libopensync-plugin-gnokii,libopensync-plugin-google-calendar,libopensync-plugin-gpe,libopensync-plugin-irmc,libopensync-plugin-kdepim,libopensync-plugin-moto,libopensync-plugin-opie,libopensync-plugin-palm,libopensync-plugin-python,libopensync-plugin-vformat,libpolyxmass,libpqxx,librra,msynctool,openal,polyxmass-bin,pywbxml,synce-software-manager behdad: gthumb,libthai bernie: sugar berrange: perl-Module-CPANTS-Analyse,perl-Sys-Virt bjensen: ax25-apps,linpsk,linpsk,xastir,xdx bjohnson: dbmail bojan: apr bos: ghc-gtk2hs,haddock09,happy bpepple: evolution-brutus,ggz-gtk-client,python-reportlab,swfdec-gnome buc: freetds,newscache caillon: file-roller cheese: libopensync-plugin-gnokii,libopensync-plugin-syncml chitlesh: libstroke colding: evolution-brutus corsepiu: perl,perl-Class-Autouse,perl-Class-Inspector,perl-Data-ICal,perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl,perl-Test-Inline cweyl: perl-Archive-Any,perl-Gnome2-GConf,perl-Gtk2-Notify,perl-JSON-Any,perl-Moose,perl-MooseX-Params-Validate,perl-POE-Component-SNMP,perl-RRD-Simple,perl-Test-WWW-Mechanize-Catalyst,perl-WWW-Mechanize cwickert: Thunar,gwget,regexxer,ristretto,thunar-archive-plugin,thunar-media-tags-plugin,thunar-shares,thunar-volman,xfburn,xfce4-notes-plugin,xfce4-places-plugin,xfce4-verve-plugin,xfce4-volstatus-icon,xfce4-xkb-plugin danielm: initng-conf-gtk danw: libsoup davidz: DeviceKit-disks,gnome-speech,gok,notification-daemon dbhole: java-1.6.0-openjdk,maven-scm,maven-shared,maven2,plexus-appserver,plexus-cdc,plexus-maven-plugin,plexus-runtime-builder,plexus-xmlrpc dcbw: csound dchen: UnihanDb deji: tracker denis: alltray,gconfmm26,pam_keyring,xfburn devrim: classpathx-jaf dledford: lam,libibcommon,libibmad,libibumad dp67: ax25-apps,linpsk drago01: pinot dtimms: audacity dwalluck: classpathx-jaf dwmw2: hfsutils,linux-atm,qemu edhill: cdo,libctl,libmatheval,nco,osiv,scrip ehabkost: etherboot emoret: paprefs erikos: sugar firewing: totem fitzsim: javahelp2 fnasser: geronimo-specs,jakarta-commons-el fonts-sig: libXfontcache gemi: audacity,cook,gauche,gauche-gl,gauche-gtk,q,smarteiffel ghenry: Sprog,cpan2rpm gilboa: icewm,kdebluetooth glommer: etherboot green: ardour,ladspa-swh-plugins,seq24,ws-commons-util hadess: gnome-web-photo,lirc,totem hardaker: dnssec-tools haskell-sig: ghc-gtk2hs,haddock09,happy huzaifas: libtar,libtar i18n-team: UnihanDb,ibus-chewing,imsettings,m17n-lib,scim,uim iarnell: perl-Regexp-Assemble iburrell: perl-SVN-Mirror ics: liblqr-1 ixs: libsndfile,mboxgrep izhar: compizconfig-backend-gconf,compizconfig-python,libcompizconfig jakub: compat-gcc-32,compat-gcc-34,valgrind james: zsh jcollie: asterisk,python-openid jdieter: presto-utils jeckersb: PyYAML jima: alsa-oss jjames: jsr-305 jkratoch: insight jnovy: compat-db johnp: sugar joost: fpc jorton: apr,distcache,libidn jpmahowa: gnome-compiz-manager jpo: perl-Net-SSLeay jpye: sundials jsoeterb: xmms-cdread jspaleta: g3data jtulach: javahelp2 jwilson: emerald,libdv,libiec61883,lirc,lirc jwrdegoede: ardour,monkey-bubble,soundtouch,worminator kaboom: qgo kaigai: sepostgresql karlik: widelands kasal: gdbm,libgconf-java,libgtk-java,perl,perl-BSD-Resource,perl-Net-SSLeay,perl-PDL,perl-XML-LibXSLT kevin: Terminal,Thunar,thunar-shares,thunar-volman,xfce4-places-plugin,xfce4-verve-plugin,xfce4-volstatus-icon,xfdesktop kkofler: flasm,kde-l10n krh: compiz kurzawa: incollector kwizart: afflib,directfb,libgii kzak: sudo langel: java-1.6.0-openjdk,java-1.6.0-openjdk laxathom: gnome-desktop-sharp,perl-Class-Autouse,perl-Class-Inspector,perl-Test-Inline,quake3,wammu lfarkas: gstreamer-java,rxtx limb: lilypond,vdrift lkundrak: grub2,java-1.6.0-openjdk,perl-XML-Smart,skychart lmacken: python-peak-rules lokthare: almanah,pyrenamer ltinkl: kde-l10n lucilanga: xastir lutter: ruby-rpm makghosh: player mattdm: wxGTK mbarnes: devhelp,evolution-exchange,evolution-sharp,gnome-python2-desktop,gtkspell,libsoup mccann: libfakekey mclasen: libgweather mgarski: xscorch mhlavink: nut michich: icecream mikep: fmt-ptrn mildew: sudo mitr: python-gtkextra mjw: java-1.6.0-openjdk mmahut: skychart mmaslano: perl,perl-BSD-Resource,perl-PDL mnagy: ipa monnerat: insight morgan: sugar mpeters: pan mpg: gnome-web-photo,sugar mschwendt: audacity mtasaka: WebKit,ruby-hpricot mwiriadi: gnome-themes-extras,gnome-themes-extras mwringe: jline,junitperf,modello nalin: nss_ldap nboyle: qemu-launcher ngompa: avant-window-navigator nosnilmot: libsilc,libsilc,pidgin-guifications notting: initscripts,kudzu nphilipp: bzflag,rss-glx,sane-backends nsantos: qpidc oliver: apr ondrejj: libnss-mysql,sagator orion: R-lmtest,hdf5,lasi,netcdf-decoders,netcdf-perl,octave-forge,perl-Log-Trivial,perl-PDL,plplot,wgrib2 orphan: libzzub,nautilus-share otaylor: desktop-data-model ovasik: libwvstreams,openjade overholt: ws-commons-util,xmlrpc3 pawsa: balsa pcheung: plexus-i18n perl-sig: cpan2rpm,netcdf-perl,perl-Archive-Any,perl-Class-Autouse,perl-Class-Inspector,perl-Data-ICal,perl-Data-Stag,perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl,perl-Gnome2-GConf,perl-Gtk2-Notify,perl-HTTP-Proxy,perl-IPC-Shareable,perl-JSON-Any,perl-Moose,perl-MooseX-Params-Validate,perl-Net-SSLeay,perl-POE-Component-SNMP,perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule,perl-RRD-Simple,perl-Regexp-Assemble,perl-SVN-Mirror,perl-Sys-Virt,perl-Test-Inline,perl-Test-WWW-Mechanize-Catalyst,perl-Test-Warn,perl-WWW-Mechanize,perl-XML-LibXSLT,perl-bioperl,perl-bioperl-run pertusus: Thunar,flasm,gpm,hdf5,icewm,nco,netcdf-decoders,netcdf-perl,wgrib2 petersen: ghc-gtk2hs,haddock09,happy,m17n-lib,scim pfj: boo,csound,monodoc pghmcfc: perl-Net-SSLeay pgordon: WebKit,tremulous,tremulous phuang: awn-extras-applets,ibus-chewing,scim pingou: R-BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2,R-BSgenome.Dmelanogaster.FlyBase.r51,R-hgu95av2probe,R-pls pmatilai: compat-db,popt pmuldoon: libgtk-java pnemade: m17n-lib pwouters: ldns qspencer: autotrace,octave-forge rakesh: coredumper,ctemplate,linphone rathann: dx rcritten: ipa rdieter: Macaulay2,ggz-gtk-client,kde-l10n,libpqxx rezso: mapnik,qgis rhughes: gnome-power-manager,gnome-power-manager,hal rishi: gengetopt rjones: freetennis rnorwood: perl,perl-BSD-Resource,perl-PDL robert: digitemp,librsync,popt roozbeh: autotrace rstrode: gcalctool,gnome-applets,gnome-panel,libbonoboui,redhat-menus rvinyard: bitgtkmm,conexus,conexusmm,papyrus rvokal: net-tools,openjade,pidgin-guifications s4504kr: kaya salimma: evolution-remove-duplicates,gnome-do,python-storm,xbacklight sandeen: guilt sconklin: ax25-apps,linpsk,xdx scop: kdebluetooth,vdr,vdr-ttxtsubs seg: openjpeg sergiopr: tkimg shahms: bzr-gtk sharkcz: atari++,wxGTK shishz: perl-XML-LibXSLT silfreed: qgis simo: ipa sindrepb: avant-window-navigator,ax25-apps,cowbell,firewalk,gnome-do,gnome-do,linpsk,xdx snecker: mapnik splinux: gconf-cleaner,gdmap,gnome-specimen spot: libpaper,librx,logjam,perl,perl-HTTP-Proxy,perl-IPC-Shareable,perl-Test-Warn,rekall,taglib-sharp,tcl-snack ssp: gnome-system-monitor,libXTrap,libXfontcache,libXp,metacity stahnma: ruby-rpm stalwart: enlightenment steve: perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule,perl-Sys-Virt steved: nfs4-acl-tools subhodip: kdetv svahl: devilspie swagiaal: libgtk-java tagoh: imsettings,uim tanguy: scidavis tbzatek: fpc terjeros: simdock,xosview tgl: libjpeg,unixODBC than: kde-l10n thias: blackbox,directfb,emerald,gcombust,hercules,pigment thomasvs: ladspa,rasqal till: iasl,pam_mount timfenn: gpp4 timn: player tmraz: pam tnorth: avr-binutils tomeu: sugar toshio: bzr-gtk,bzr-gtk trondd: avr-binutils,nautilus-python turki: emerald tuxbrewr: kde-l10n twaugh: cups vcrhonek: expect victorv: ini4j vpv: vdr walters: bigboard,desktop-data-model wart: abe,ember wtogami: libsilc,pidgin-guifications xavierb: xorg-x11-drv-openchrome xgl-maint: xorg-x11-drv-ati,xorg-x11-drv-i810,xorg-x11-server xris: orpie zkota: python-bibtex zprikryl: gpm,net-tools -- Matt Domsch Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux From Matt_Domsch at dell.com Sat Dec 20 03:01:50 2008 From: Matt_Domsch at dell.com (Matt Domsch) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:01:50 -0600 Subject: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2008-12-17 i386 Message-ID: <20081220030150.GA23137@mock.linuxdev.us.dell.com> Fedora Rawhide-in-Mock Build Results for i386 This is a full rebuild, using systems running rawhide as of 12/17 to rebuild all packages in rawhide on 12/17. Full logs at http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/ Total packages: 6659 Number failed to build: 377 Number expected to fail due to ExclusiveArch or ExcludeArch: 13 Leaving: 364 Of those expected to have worked... Without a bug filed: 362 ---------------------------------- DeviceKit-disks-002-0.git20080720.fc10 (build/make) davidz E-0.999.006-2.fc10 (build/make) dwheeler Macaulay2-1.1-2.fc10 (build/make) rdieter R-BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2-1.2.0-5 (build/make) pingou R-BSgenome.Dmelanogaster.FlyBase.r51-1.3.1-3 (build/make) pingou R-hgu95av2probe-2.0.0-1.fc9 (build/make) pingou R-lmtest-0.9-2.fc10 (build/make) orion R-pls-2.1-2.fc9 (build/make) pingou Sprog-0.14-13.fc9 (build/make) ghenry Terminal-0.2.8.3-1.fc10 (build/make) kevin Thunar-0.9.0-4.fc9 (build/make) kevin,pertusus,cwickert UnihanDb-5.1.0-7.fc10 (build/make) dchen,i18n-team WebKit-1.0.0-0.15.svn37790.fc10 (build/make) pgordon,mtasaka abe-1.1-7.fc9 (build/make) wart afflib-3.3.4-4.fc10 (build/make) kwizart alltray-0.70-2.fc9 (build/make) denis almanah-0.5.0-1.fc11 (build/make) lokthare alsa-oss-1.0.17-1.fc10 (build/make) jima apr-1.3.3-1.fc10 (build/make) jorton,oliver,bojan ardour-2.7-1.fc11 (build/make) green,jwrdegoede asterisk-1.6.1-0.5beta2.fc11 (build/make) jcollie atari++-1.55-2.fc11 (build/make) sharkcz atlas-3.6.0-15.fc10 (build/make) deji,deji audacity-1.3.5-0.8.beta.fc10 (build/make) gemi,mschwendt,dtimms autotrace-0.31.1-18.fc10 (build/make) qspencer,roozbeh avant-window-navigator-0.2.6-13.fc11 (build/make) sindrepb,ngompa avr-binutils-2.18-2.fc9 (patch_fuzz) tnorth,trondd awn-extras-applets-0.2.6-6.fc10 (build/make) phuang ax25-apps-0.0.6-2.fc9 (build/make) bjensen,sindrepb,sconklin,dp67 balsa-2.3.26-2.fc10 (build/make) pawsa bigboard-0.6.4-3.fc11 (build/make) walters bitgtkmm-0.4.0-4.fc10 (build/make) rvinyard blackbox-0.70.1-11 (build/make) thias bmpx-0.40.14-7.fc10 (build/make) akahl boo-0.8.1.2865-4.fc9 (build/make) pfj bzflag-2.0.12-3.fc10 (build/make) nphilipp bzr-gtk-0.95.0-2.fc10 (build/make) toshio,shahms,toshio cdo-1.0.8-2.fc9 (build/make) edhill classpathx-jaf-1.0-12.fc10 (build/make) devrim,dwalluck clutter-0.8.2-1.fc10 (build/make) allisson compat-db-4.6.21-5.fc10 (build/make) jnovy,pmatilai compat-gcc-32-3.2.3-64 (build/make) jakub compat-gcc-34-3.4.6-9 (patch_fuzz) jakub compiz-0.7.8-9.fc11 (build/make) krh compizconfig-backend-gconf-0.7.8-1.fc11 (build/make) izhar compizconfig-python-0.7.8-2.fc11 (build/make) izhar conexus-0.5.3-4.fc9 (build/make) rvinyard conexusmm-0.5.0-3.fc7 (build/make) rvinyard coredumper-1.2.1-6.fc10 (build/make) rakesh cowbell-0.3-0.svn34.4.fc10 (build/make) sindrepb cpan2rpm-2.028-2.fc8.1 (build/make) ghenry,perl-sig csound-5.03.0-16.fc9 (build/make) dcbw,pfj ctemplate-0.91-3.fc10 (build/make) rakesh dbmail-2.2.9-2.fc10 (build/make) bjohnson desktop-data-model-1.2.5-2.fc11 (build/make) walters,otaylor devhelp-0.22-2.fc11 (build/make) mbarnes devilspie-0.22-2.fc9 (build/make) svahl digitemp-3.5.0-3.fc9 (build/make) robert directfb-1.2.6-3.fc10 (build/make) thias,kwizart distcache-1.4.5-17 (build/make) jorton dnssec-tools-1.4.1-2.fc10 (build/make) hardaker dx-4.4.4-7.fc10 (build/make) rathann ember-0.5.4-5.fc11 (build/make) atorkhov,wart emerald-0.7.6-2.fc10 (build/make) turki,thias,jwilson enlightenment-0.16.999.043-3.fc10 (build/make) stalwart evolution-brutus-1.2.27-2.fc10 (build/make) bpepple,colding evolution-exchange-2.25.1-1.fc11 (build/make) mbarnes evolution-remove-duplicates-0.0.4-1.fc10 (build/make) salimma evolution-sharp-0.18.1-1.fc10 (build/make) mbarnes expect-5.43.0-15.fc10 (build/make) vcrhonek file-roller-2.24.2-1.fc10 (build/make) caillon flasm-1.62-4.fc9 (build/make) kkofler,pertusus fmt-ptrn-1.3.17-2.fc10 (build/make) mikep freealut-1.1.0-6.fc9 (build/make) awjb freetds-0.82-2.fc10 (build/make) buc freetennis-0.4.8-14.fc10 (build/make) rjones g3data-1.5.1-8.fc9 (build/make) jspaleta gcalctool-5.25.1-2.fc11 (build/make) rstrode gconf-cleaner-0.0.2-6.fc10 (build/make) splinux gconfmm26-2.24.0-1.fc10 (build/make) denis gdbm-1.8.0-29.fc10 (build/make) kasal gdmap-0.7.5-6.fc6 (build/make) splinux gengetopt-2.22.1-1.fc10 (build/make) rishi geronimo-specs-1.0-2.M2.fc10 (build/make) fnasser ggz-gtk-client-0.0.14.1-1.fc9 (build/make) bpepple,rdieter ghc-gtk2hs-0.9.13-6.20081108.fc11 (build/make) bos,haskell-sig,petersen gnome-applets-2.25.1-4.fc11 (build/make) rstrode gnome-compiz-manager-0.10.4-6.fc11 (build/make) jpmahowa gnome-desktop-sharp-2.24.0-3.fc10 (build/make) laxathom gnome-do-0.6.1.0-2.fc10 (build/make) sindrepb,salimma,sindrepb gnome-panel-2.24.1-6.fc11 (build/make) rstrode gnome-power-manager-2.24.2-2.fc11 (build/make) rhughes,rhughes gnome-python2-desktop-2.24.0-5.fc11 (build/make) mbarnes gnome-specimen-0.3-3.fc11 (build/make) splinux gnome-speech-0.4.22-1.fc10 (build/make) davidz gnome-system-monitor-2.24.1-1.fc10 (build/make) ssp gnome-themes-extras-2.22.0-2.fc9 (build/make) mwiriadi,mwiriadi gnome-web-photo-0.3-12.fc10 (build/make) hadess,mpg gok-2.25.2-1.fc11 (build/make) davidz gpm-1.20.5-1.fc10 (build/make) zprikryl,pertusus gpp4-1.0.4-11.fc11 (build/make) timfenn grub2-1.98-0.3.20080827svn.fc10 (build/make) lkundrak gstreamer-plugins-base-0.10.21-2.fc10 (build/make) ajax gthumb-2.10.10-3.fc10 (build/make) behdad gtkspell-2.0.13-1.fc10 (build/make) mbarnes guilt-0.30-2.fc10 (build/make) sandeen gwget-0.99-8.fc10 (build/make) cwickert haddock09-0.9-3.fc10 (build/make) bos,haskell-sig,petersen hal-0.5.12-12.20081027git.fc10 (build/make) rhughes happy-1.18.2-1.fc11 (build/make) bos,haskell-sig,petersen hdf5-1.8.1-2.fc10 (build/make) orion,pertusus hercules-3.05-7.20081009cvs.fc10 (build/make) thias hfsutils-3.2.6-14.fc9 (patch_fuzz) dwmw2 iasl-20061109-4.fc9 (build/make) till ibus-chewing-0.1.1.20081023-2.fc11 (build/make) phuang,i18n-team icecream-0.8.0-11.20080117svn.fc9 (build/make) michich icewm-1.2.35-4.fc10 (build/make) gilboa,pertusus imsettings-0.105.1-2.fc10 (build/make) tagoh,i18n-team incollector-1.0-6.fc9.1 (build/make) kurzawa ini4j-0.3.2-4.fc10 (build/make) victorv initng-conf-gtk-0.5.1-4.fc9 (build/make) danielm initscripts-8.86-1 (build/make) notting insight-6.8-4.fc11 (build/make) monnerat,jkratoch ipa-1.2.0-3.fc11 (build/make) rcritten,simo,mnagy jakarta-commons-el-1.0-9.4.fc10 (build/make) fnasser javahelp2-2.0.05-5.fc10 (build/make) jtulach,fitzsim jline-0.9.94-0.2.fc10 (build/make) mwringe jsr-305-0-0.1.20080824svn.fc10 (build/make) jjames kaya-0.5.1-1.fc10 (build/make) s4504kr kde-l10n-4.1.3-1.fc10 (build/make) than,rdieter,kkofler,tuxbrewr,ltinkl kdebluetooth-0.2-3.fc10 (build/make) gilboa,scop kdetv-0.8.9-10.fc9 (build/make) subhodip kudzu-1.2.85-2 (build/make) notting ladspa-1.12-9.fc9 (build/make) thomasvs ladspa-swh-plugins-0.4.15-12.fc9 (build/make) green lam-7.1.4-1.fc10 (build/make) dledford lasi-1.1.0-2.fc10 (build/make) orion ldns-1.4.0-1.fc11 (build/make) pwouters libXTrap-1.0.0-6.fc10 (build/make) ssp libXfontcache-1.0.4-5.fc9 (build/make) ssp,fonts-sig libXp-1.0.0-11.fc9 (build/make) ssp libbonoboui-2.24.0-1.fc10 (build/make) rstrode libcompizconfig-0.7.8-1.fc11 (build/make) izhar libctl-3.0.2-6.fc9 (build/make) edhill libdv-1.0.0-5.fc10 (build/make) jwilson libfakekey-0.1-1.fc10 (build/make) mccann libgconf-java-2.12.4-11.fc10 (build/make) kasal libgnome-java-2.12.4-9.fc10 (build/make) kasal libgweather-2.25.2-2.fc11 (build/make) mclasen libibcommon-1.1.0-1.fc10 (build/make) dledford libibmad-1.2.0-1.fc10 (build/make) dledford libibumad-1.2.0-1.fc10 (build/make) dledford libidn-0.6.14-8 (build/make) jorton libiec61883-1.1.0-5.fc10 (build/make) jwilson libjpeg-6b-43.fc10 (build/make) tgl liblqr-1-0.1.0-5.fc9 (build/make) ics libmatheval-1.1.5-2.fc9 (patch_fuzz) edhill libnss-mysql-1.5-7.fc9 (build/make) ondrejj libopensync-0.36-3.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-evolution2-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-file-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-gnokii-0.36-2.fc10 (build/make) cheese,awjb libopensync-plugin-google-calendar-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-gpe-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-irmc-0.36-2.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-kdepim-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-moto-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-opie-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-palm-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-python-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libopensync-plugin-syncml-0.35-4.fc10 (build/make) cheese libopensync-plugin-vformat-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb libpaper-1.1.23-3.fc10 (build/make) spot libpolyxmass-0.9.1-2.fc9 (build/make) awjb libpqxx-2.6.8-10.fc9 (build/make) awjb,rdieter librra-0.11.1-1.fc9 (build/make) awjb,abompard librsync-0.9.7-12.fc9 (build/make) robert librx-1.5-10.fc9 (build/make) spot libsilc-1.1.7-2.fc10 (build/make) nosnilmot,wtogami,nosnilmot libsndfile-1.0.17-6.fc10 (build/make) ixs libsoup-2.25.2-1.fc11 (build/make) mbarnes,danw libtar-1.2.11-11.fc10 (build/make) huzaifas,huzaifas libthai-0.1.9-4.fc9 (build/make) behdad libwvstreams-4.5-1.fc11 (build/make) ovasik libzzub-0.2.3-12.fc9 (patch_fuzz) orphan lightning-1.2c-1.fc10 (build/make) s4504kr,laxathom lilypond-2.11.57-2.fc11 (build/make) limb linphone-2.1.1-1.fc9 (build/make) rakesh linpsk-0.9-4.fc10 (build/make) bjensen,bjensen,sindrepb,sconklin,dp67 linux-atm-2.5.0-5 (build/make) dwmw2 logjam-4.5.3-25.fc10 (build/make) spot m17n-lib-1.5.3-1.fc10 (build/make) pnemade,i18n-team,petersen maildrop-2.0.4-6.fc9 (build/make) athimm mapnik-0.5.2-0.7.svn738.fc10 (build/make) rezso,snecker maven-scm-1.0-0.2.b3.1.6.fc10 (build/make) dbhole maven-shared-1.0-4.6.fc10 (build/make) dbhole maven2-2.0.4-10.15.fc10 (build/make) dbhole mboxgrep-0.7.9-6.fc10 (build/make) ixs mesa-7.2-0.15.fc10 (build/make) ajax,ajax metacity-2.25.34-1.fc11 (build/make) ssp modello-1.0-0.1.a8.4.4.fc10 (build/make) mwringe monkey-bubble-0.4.0-9.fc9 (build/make) jwrdegoede mono-sharpcvslib-0.35-3.fc10 (build/make) spot monodoc-2.0-5.fc10 (build/make) pfj monotone-0.41-1.fc10 (build/make) msv-1.2-0.2.20050722.3.4.fc10 (build/make) mwringe msynctool-0.36-1.fc10 (build/make) awjb nautilus-python-0.5.1-1.fc10 (build/make) trondd nautilus-share-0.7.2-13.fc10 (build/make) orphan nco-3.9.5-2.fc10 (build/make) edhill,pertusus net-tools-1.60-91.fc10 (build/make) rvokal,zprikryl netcdf-decoders-5.0.0-1.fc9 (build/make) orion,pertusus netcdf-perl-1.2.3-7.fc9 (build/make) orion,perl-sig,pertusus newscache-1.2-0.6.rc6.fc9 (build/make) buc nfs4-acl-tools-0.3.2-2.fc9 (patch_fuzz) steved nip2-7.14.5-1.fc10 (build/make) agoode notification-daemon-0.4.0-1.fc11 (build/make) davidz nss_ldap-261-4.fc10 (build/make) nalin nut-2.2.2-3.fc10 (build/make) mhlavink octave-forge-20080831-2.fc10 (build/make) qspencer,orion,alexlan olpcsound-5.08.92-12.fc11 (build/make) veplaini openal-0.0.9-0.15.20060204cvs.fc9 (patch_fuzz) awjb openjade-1.3.2-31.fc9 (build/make) ovasik,rvokal openjpeg-1.3-2.fc9 (patch_fuzz) seg orpie-1.5.1-4.fc10 (build/make) xris osiv-2.0.0-0.4.beta.fc9 (build/make) edhill pam-1.0.2-2.fc10 (build/make) tmraz pam_keyring-0.0.9-2.fc9 (build/make) denis pam_mount-0.49-1.fc10 (build/make) till pan-0.133-1.fc10 (build/make) adalloz,mpeters paprefs-0.9.7-3.fc10 (build/make) emoret papyrus-0.7.1-3.fc9 (build/make) rvinyard perl-Archive-Any-0.093-3.fc9 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-BSD-Resource-1.28-6.fc9 (build/make) kasal,rnorwood,mmaslano perl-Class-Autouse-1.29-3.fc9 (build/make) corsepiu,perl-sig,laxathom perl-Class-Inspector-1.23-1.fc10 (build/make) corsepiu,perl-sig,laxathom perl-Data-ICal-0.13-3.fc10 (build/make) corsepiu,perl-sig perl-Data-Stag-0.11-1.fc10 (build/make) alexlan,perl-sig perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl-1.04-2.fc10 (build/make) corsepiu,perl-sig perl-Gnome2-GConf-1.044-4.fc10 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-Gtk2-Notify-0.04-3.fc9 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-HTTP-Proxy-0.20-2.fc9 (build/make) spot,perl-sig perl-IPC-Shareable-0.60-6.fc9 (needs_perl_ExtUtils_MakeMaker) spot,perl-sig perl-JSON-Any-1.16-3.fc9 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-Log-Trivial-0.31-2.fc9 (build/make) orion perl-Module-CPANTS-Analyse-0.82-2.fc10 (build/make) berrange perl-Moose-0.62-1.fc11 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-MooseX-Params-Validate-0.05-1.fc10 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-Net-SSLeay-1.35-1.fc10 (build/make) pghmcfc,perl-sig,jpo,kasal perl-POE-Component-SNMP-1.07-3.fc9 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-RRD-Simple-1.43-3.fc9 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-Regexp-Assemble-0.34-1.fc11 (build/make) iarnell,perl-sig perl-SVN-Mirror-0.73-3.fc9 (build/make) iburrell,perl-sig perl-Sys-Virt-0.1.2-3.fc9 (build/make) steve,perl-sig,berrange perl-Test-Inline-2.208-3.fc10 (build/make) corsepiu,perl-sig,laxathom perl-Test-WWW-Mechanize-Catalyst-0.42-1.fc10 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-Test-Warn-0.10-3.fc9 (build/make) spot,perl-sig perl-WWW-Mechanize-1.34-1.fc10 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig perl-XML-LibXSLT-1.66-2.fc10 (build/make) kasal,perl-sig,shishz perl-XML-Smart-1.6.9-1.fc10 (build/make) lkundrak perl-bioperl-1.5.2_102-13.fc10 (build/make) alexlan,perl-sig perl-bioperl-run-1.5.2_100-3.fc9 (build/make) alexlan,perl-sig pidgin-guifications-2.16-1.fc10 (build/make) rvokal,wtogami,nosnilmot pigment-0.3.11-1.fc10 (build/make) thias pinot-0.89-1.fc10 (build/make) drago01 player-2.1.1-5.fc10 (build/make) timn,makghosh plexus-appserver-1.0-0.2.a5.2.6.fc10 (build/make) dbhole plexus-cdc-1.0-0.2.a4.1.6.fc10 (build/make) dbhole plexus-i18n-1.0-0.b6.5.3.fc10 (build/make) pcheung plexus-maven-plugin-1.2-2.4.fc10 (build/make) dbhole plexus-runtime-builder-1.0-0.2.a9.1.6.fc10 (build/make) dbhole plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.2.b4.2.11.fc10 (build/make) dbhole plplot-5.9.0-4.svn8985.fc11 (build/make) orion polyxmass-bin-0.9.7-2.fc8 (build/make) awjb popt-1.13-4.fc10 (build/make) robert,pmatilai presto-utils-0.3.3-2.fc10 (build/make) jdieter protobuf-2.0.2-5.fc11 (build/make) abbot pyrenamer-0.6.0-2.fc11 (build/make) lokthare python-bibtex-1.2.4-5.fc11 (build/make) zkota python-cherrypy2-2.3.0-7.fc11 (build/make) toshio,lmacken,fschwarz python-gtkextra-1.1.0-3.fc10 (build/make) mitr python-openid-2.2.1-1.fc10 (build/make) jcollie python-storm-0.13-2.fc10 (build/make) salimma pywbxml-0.1-3.fc9 (build/make) awjb q-7.11-2.fc10 (build/make) gemi qemu-0.9.1-10.fc10 (patch_fuzz) dwmw2 qemu-launcher-1.7.4-4.fc9 (build/make) nboyle qgis-0.11.0-4.fc10 (build/make) silfreed,rezso qgo-1.5.4r2-1.fc9 (build/make) kaboom qpidc-0.3.722557-1.fc10 (build/make) aconway,nsantos quake3-1.34-0.9.rc4.fc9 (patch_fuzz) laxathom quesa-1.8-1.fc9 (build/make) ajax rasqal-0.9.15-1.fc9 (build/make) thomasvs redhat-menus-10.0.1-1.fc11 (build/make) rstrode regexxer-0.9-3.fc9 (build/make) cwickert rekall-2.4.6-5.fc10 (build/make) spot ristretto-0.0.21-1.fc11 (build/make) cwickert rss-glx-0.8.1.p-20.fc10 (build/make) nphilipp ruby-hpricot-0.6-2.fc9 (build/make) mtasaka ruby-openid-2.1.2-1.fc10 (build/make) allisson ruby-rpm-1.2.3-4.fc9 (build/make) lutter,stahnma rxtx-2.1-0.2.7r2.fc11 (build/make) lfarkas sagator-1.1.1-0.beta1.fc10 (build/make) ondrejj sane-backends-1.0.19-12.fc10 (build/make) nphilipp scidavis-0.1.3-2.fc10 (build/make) tanguy scim-1.4.7-35.fc10 (build/make) phuang,i18n-team,petersen scrip-1.4-9.fc8 (build/make) edhill sepostgresql-8.3.5-2.1183.fc10 (build/make) kaigai seq24-0.8.7-13.fc10 (patch_fuzz) green simdock-1.2-3.fc10 (build/make) terjeros smarteiffel-2.3-2.fc9 (build/make) gemi soundtouch-1.3.1-10.fc9 (build/make) jwrdegoede sudo-1.6.9p17-2.fc10 (build/make) mildew,kzak sugar-0.83.3-4.fc11 (build/make) mpg,johnp,bernie,morgan,tomeu,erikos sundials-2.3.0-6.fc9 (build/make) jpye swfdec-gnome-2.24.0-2.fc10 (build/make) bpepple syck-0.61-5.1.fc10 (build/make) oliver synce-software-manager-0.9.0-10.fc9 (build/make) awjb taglib-sharp-2.0.3.0-7.fc11 (build/make) spot tcl-snack-2.2.10-6.fc10 (build/make) spot teseq-1.0.0-2.fc10 (build/make) bonii thunar-archive-plugin-0.2.4-5.fc10 (build/make) cwickert thunar-media-tags-plugin-0.1.2-4.fc9 (build/make) cwickert thunar-shares-0.16-1.fc10 (build/make) cwickert,kevin thunar-volman-0.2.0-2.fc9 (build/make) cwickert,kevin tiger-3.2.1-8.fc9 (patch_fuzz) abompard tightvnc-1.5.0-0.9.20081120svn3200.fc11 (build/make) atkac tkimg-1.4-0.1.20081115svn.fc11 (build/make) sergiopr totem-2.24.3-3.fc11 (build/make) hadess,firewing tracker-0.6.6-4.fc11 (build/make) deji tremulous-1.1.0-6.fc9 (build/make) pgordon,pgordon uim-1.5.3-1.fc10 (build/make) tagoh,i18n-team unixODBC-2.2.12-9.fc10 (build/make) tgl valgrind-3.3.0-4 (build/make) jakub vdr-1.6.0-15.fc11 (build/make) scop,vpv vdr-ttxtsubs-0.0.5-6.fc11 (build/make) scop vdrift-20080805-2.fc10 (build/make) limb vnc-4.1.2-35.fc10 (patch_fuzz) atkac wammu-0.28-1.fc10 (build/make) laxathom wgrib2-1.7.2b-1.fc10 (build/make) orion,pertusus widelands-0-0.13.Build13.fc11 (build/make) karlik worminator-3.0R2.1-8.fc9 (build/make) jwrdegoede ws-commons-util-1.0.1-10.fc10 (build/make) green,overholt wxGTK-2.8.9-3.fc11 (build/make) mattdm,sharkcz xastir-1.9.4-5.fc10 (build/make) lucilanga,bjensen xbacklight-1.1-2.fc9 (build/make) salimma xdx-2.4-2.fc9 (build/make) bjensen,sindrepb,sconklin xfburn-0.3.91-2.fc11 (build/make) cwickert,denis xfce4-notes-plugin-1.6.3-1.fc11 (build/make) cwickert xfce4-places-plugin-1.1.0-3.fc10 (build/make) cwickert,kevin xfce4-verve-plugin-0.3.6-1.fc11 (build/make) cwickert,kevin xfce4-volstatus-icon-0.1.0-3.fc9 (build/make) cwickert,kevin xfce4-xkb-plugin-0.5.2-1.fc11 (build/make) cwickert xfdesktop-4.4.2-6.fc10 (build/make) kevin xmlrpc3-3.0-2.9.fc10 (build/make) overholt,akurtakov xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.9.0-62.fc10 (build/make) xgl-maint xorg-x11-drv-i810-2.5.0-3.fc11 (build/make) xgl-maint xorg-x11-drv-openchrome-0.2.903-2.fc11 (build/make) xavierb xorg-x11-server-1.5.3-6.fc10 (build/make) xgl-maint xosview-1.8.3-13.20080301cvs.fc10 (build/make) terjeros xscorch-0.2.0-12.fc8 (build/make) mgarski zsh-4.3.4-8.fc9 (patch_fuzz) james With bugs filed: 2 ---------------------------------- gcl-2.6.7-18.fc9 [u'440913 ASSIGNED'] (build/make) jjames,green libFoundation-1.1.3-11.fc9 [u'440564 ASSIGNED'] (build/make) athimm ---------------------------------- Packages by owner: abbot: protobuf abompard: librra,tiger aconway: qpidc adalloz: pan agoode: nip2 ajax: gstreamer-plugins-base,mesa,mesa,quesa akahl: bmpx akurtakov: xmlrpc3 alexlan: octave-forge,perl-Data-Stag,perl-bioperl,perl-bioperl-run allisson: clutter,ruby-openid athimm: libFoundation,maildrop atkac: tightvnc,vnc atorkhov: ember awjb: freealut,libopensync,libopensync-plugin-evolution2,libopensync-plugin-file,libopensync-plugin-gnokii,libopensync-plugin-google-calendar,libopensync-plugin-gpe,libopensync-plugin-irmc,libopensync-plugin-kdepim,libopensync-plugin-moto,libopensync-plugin-opie,libopensync-plugin-palm,libopensync-plugin-python,libopensync-plugin-vformat,libpolyxmass,libpqxx,librra,msynctool,openal,polyxmass-bin,pywbxml,synce-software-manager behdad: gthumb,libthai bernie: sugar berrange: perl-Module-CPANTS-Analyse,perl-Sys-Virt bjensen: ax25-apps,linpsk,linpsk,xastir,xdx bjohnson: dbmail bojan: apr bonii: teseq bos: ghc-gtk2hs,haddock09,happy bpepple: evolution-brutus,ggz-gtk-client,swfdec-gnome buc: freetds,newscache caillon: file-roller cheese: libopensync-plugin-gnokii,libopensync-plugin-syncml colding: evolution-brutus corsepiu: perl-Class-Autouse,perl-Class-Inspector,perl-Data-ICal,perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl,perl-Test-Inline cweyl: perl-Archive-Any,perl-Gnome2-GConf,perl-Gtk2-Notify,perl-JSON-Any,perl-Moose,perl-MooseX-Params-Validate,perl-POE-Component-SNMP,perl-RRD-Simple,perl-Test-WWW-Mechanize-Catalyst,perl-WWW-Mechanize cwickert: Thunar,gwget,regexxer,ristretto,thunar-archive-plugin,thunar-media-tags-plugin,thunar-shares,thunar-volman,xfburn,xfce4-notes-plugin,xfce4-places-plugin,xfce4-verve-plugin,xfce4-volstatus-icon,xfce4-xkb-plugin danielm: initng-conf-gtk danw: libsoup davidz: DeviceKit-disks,gnome-speech,gok,notification-daemon dbhole: maven-scm,maven-shared,maven2,plexus-appserver,plexus-cdc,plexus-maven-plugin,plexus-runtime-builder,plexus-xmlrpc dcbw: csound dchen: UnihanDb deji: atlas,atlas,tracker denis: alltray,gconfmm26,pam_keyring,xfburn devrim: classpathx-jaf dledford: lam,libibcommon,libibmad,libibumad dp67: ax25-apps,linpsk drago01: pinot dtimms: audacity dwalluck: classpathx-jaf dwheeler: E dwmw2: hfsutils,linux-atm,qemu edhill: cdo,libctl,libmatheval,nco,osiv,scrip emoret: paprefs erikos: sugar firewing: totem fitzsim: javahelp2 fnasser: geronimo-specs,jakarta-commons-el fonts-sig: libXfontcache fschwarz: python-cherrypy2 gemi: audacity,q,smarteiffel ghenry: Sprog,cpan2rpm gilboa: icewm,kdebluetooth green: ardour,gcl,ladspa-swh-plugins,seq24,ws-commons-util hadess: gnome-web-photo,totem hardaker: dnssec-tools haskell-sig: ghc-gtk2hs,haddock09,happy huzaifas: libtar,libtar i18n-team: UnihanDb,ibus-chewing,imsettings,m17n-lib,scim,uim iarnell: perl-Regexp-Assemble iburrell: perl-SVN-Mirror ics: liblqr-1 ixs: libsndfile,mboxgrep izhar: compizconfig-backend-gconf,compizconfig-python,libcompizconfig jakub: compat-gcc-32,compat-gcc-34,valgrind james: zsh jcollie: asterisk,python-openid jdieter: presto-utils jima: alsa-oss jjames: gcl,jsr-305 jkratoch: insight jnovy: compat-db johnp: sugar jorton: apr,distcache,libidn jpmahowa: gnome-compiz-manager jpo: perl-Net-SSLeay jpye: sundials jspaleta: g3data jtulach: javahelp2 jwilson: emerald,libdv,libiec61883 jwrdegoede: ardour,monkey-bubble,soundtouch,worminator kaboom: qgo kaigai: sepostgresql karlik: widelands kasal: gdbm,libgconf-java,libgnome-java,perl-BSD-Resource,perl-Net-SSLeay,perl-XML-LibXSLT kevin: Terminal,Thunar,thunar-shares,thunar-volman,xfce4-places-plugin,xfce4-verve-plugin,xfce4-volstatus-icon,xfdesktop kkofler: flasm,kde-l10n krh: compiz kurzawa: incollector kwizart: afflib,directfb kzak: sudo laxathom: gnome-desktop-sharp,lightning,perl-Class-Autouse,perl-Class-Inspector,perl-Test-Inline,quake3,wammu lfarkas: rxtx limb: lilypond,vdrift lkundrak: grub2,perl-XML-Smart lmacken: python-cherrypy2 lokthare: almanah,pyrenamer ltinkl: kde-l10n lucilanga: xastir lutter: ruby-rpm makghosh: player mattdm: wxGTK mbarnes: devhelp,evolution-exchange,evolution-sharp,gnome-python2-desktop,gtkspell,libsoup mccann: libfakekey mclasen: libgweather mgarski: xscorch mhlavink: nut michich: icecream mikep: fmt-ptrn mildew: sudo mitr: python-gtkextra mmaslano: perl-BSD-Resource mnagy: ipa monnerat: insight morgan: sugar mpeters: pan mpg: gnome-web-photo,sugar mschwendt: audacity mtasaka: WebKit,ruby-hpricot mwiriadi: gnome-themes-extras,gnome-themes-extras mwringe: jline,modello,msv nalin: nss_ldap nboyle: qemu-launcher ngompa: avant-window-navigator nosnilmot: libsilc,libsilc,pidgin-guifications notting: initscripts,kudzu nphilipp: bzflag,rss-glx,sane-backends nsantos: qpidc oliver: apr,syck ondrejj: libnss-mysql,sagator orion: R-lmtest,hdf5,lasi,netcdf-decoders,netcdf-perl,octave-forge,perl-Log-Trivial,plplot,wgrib2 orphan: libzzub,nautilus-share otaylor: desktop-data-model ovasik: libwvstreams,openjade overholt: ws-commons-util,xmlrpc3 pawsa: balsa pcheung: plexus-i18n perl-sig: cpan2rpm,netcdf-perl,perl-Archive-Any,perl-Class-Autouse,perl-Class-Inspector,perl-Data-ICal,perl-Data-Stag,perl-File-Find-Rule-Perl,perl-Gnome2-GConf,perl-Gtk2-Notify,perl-HTTP-Proxy,perl-IPC-Shareable,perl-JSON-Any,perl-Moose,perl-MooseX-Params-Validate,perl-Net-SSLeay,perl-POE-Component-SNMP,perl-RRD-Simple,perl-Regexp-Assemble,perl-SVN-Mirror,perl-Sys-Virt,perl-Test-Inline,perl-Test-WWW-Mechanize-Catalyst,perl-Test-Warn,perl-WWW-Mechanize,perl-XML-LibXSLT,perl-bioperl,perl-bioperl-run pertusus: Thunar,flasm,gpm,hdf5,icewm,nco,netcdf-decoders,netcdf-perl,wgrib2 petersen: ghc-gtk2hs,haddock09,happy,m17n-lib,scim pfj: boo,csound,monodoc pghmcfc: perl-Net-SSLeay pgordon: WebKit,tremulous,tremulous phuang: awn-extras-applets,ibus-chewing,scim pingou: R-BSgenome.Celegans.UCSC.ce2,R-BSgenome.Dmelanogaster.FlyBase.r51,R-hgu95av2probe,R-pls pmatilai: compat-db,popt pnemade: m17n-lib pwouters: ldns qspencer: autotrace,octave-forge rakesh: coredumper,ctemplate,linphone rathann: dx rcritten: ipa rdieter: Macaulay2,ggz-gtk-client,kde-l10n,libpqxx rezso: mapnik,qgis rhughes: gnome-power-manager,gnome-power-manager,hal rishi: gengetopt rjones: freetennis rnorwood: perl-BSD-Resource robert: digitemp,librsync,popt roozbeh: autotrace rstrode: gcalctool,gnome-applets,gnome-panel,libbonoboui,redhat-menus rvinyard: bitgtkmm,conexus,conexusmm,papyrus rvokal: net-tools,openjade,pidgin-guifications s4504kr: kaya,lightning salimma: evolution-remove-duplicates,gnome-do,python-storm,xbacklight sandeen: guilt sconklin: ax25-apps,linpsk,xdx scop: kdebluetooth,vdr,vdr-ttxtsubs seg: openjpeg sergiopr: tkimg shahms: bzr-gtk sharkcz: atari++,wxGTK shishz: perl-XML-LibXSLT silfreed: qgis simo: ipa sindrepb: avant-window-navigator,ax25-apps,cowbell,gnome-do,gnome-do,linpsk,xdx snecker: mapnik splinux: gconf-cleaner,gdmap,gnome-specimen spot: libpaper,librx,logjam,mono-sharpcvslib,perl-HTTP-Proxy,perl-IPC-Shareable,perl-Test-Warn,rekall,taglib-sharp,tcl-snack ssp: gnome-system-monitor,libXTrap,libXfontcache,libXp,metacity stahnma: ruby-rpm stalwart: enlightenment steve: perl-Sys-Virt steved: nfs4-acl-tools subhodip: kdetv svahl: devilspie tagoh: imsettings,uim tanguy: scidavis terjeros: simdock,xosview tgl: libjpeg,unixODBC than: kde-l10n thias: blackbox,directfb,emerald,hercules,pigment thomasvs: ladspa,rasqal till: iasl,pam_mount timfenn: gpp4 timn: player tmraz: pam tnorth: avr-binutils tomeu: sugar toshio: bzr-gtk,bzr-gtk,python-cherrypy2 trondd: avr-binutils,nautilus-python turki: emerald tuxbrewr: kde-l10n vcrhonek: expect veplaini: olpcsound victorv: ini4j vpv: vdr walters: bigboard,desktop-data-model wart: abe,ember wtogami: libsilc,pidgin-guifications xavierb: xorg-x11-drv-openchrome xgl-maint: xorg-x11-drv-ati,xorg-x11-drv-i810,xorg-x11-server xris: orpie zkota: python-bibtex zprikryl: gpm,net-tools -- Matt Domsch Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 11:54:27 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 06:54:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477058] Unreadable fonts in OpenOffice/Word and gftp (and other apps?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812201154.mBKBsR5K011192@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477058 Ben Laenen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bl.bugs at gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Ben Laenen 2008-12-20 06:54:26 EDT --- It looks like you didn't attach a screenshot. Please try again, because "bad rendering" can mean anything. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 16:54:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:54:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812201654.mBKGsoSP020556@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477330 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 16:54:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:54:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477330] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477330 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: abyssinica-fonts AssignedTo: bernie at codewiz.org ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: bernie at codewiz.org, johnp at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Blocks: 477044 Classification: Fedora After more than a month of consultation, feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved by FESCO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Package maintainers must now convert their packages in rawhide to the new templates. The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can serve as examples if the templates published in the fontpackages-devel package are not clear enough: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts FPC and FESCO were not consulted on splitting or renaming packages, nevertheless the new templates make it fare easier to manage subpackages, so you're strongly encouraged to split your packages along font family lines. A mandatory rule about splitting will probably be submitted for approval before the F11 release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 16:57:39 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:57:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812201657.mBKGvdAd027935@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477331 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 16:57:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 11:57:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477331] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477331 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: asana-math-fonts AssignedTo: jonstanley at gmail.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: jonstanley at gmail.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Blocks: 477044 Classification: Fedora After more than a month of consultation, feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved by FESCO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Package maintainers must now convert their packages in rawhide to the new templates. The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can serve as examples if the templates published in the fontpackages-devel package are not clear enough: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts FPC and FESCO were not consulted on splitting or renaming packages, nevertheless the new templates make it fare easier to manage subpackages, so you're strongly encouraged to split your packages along font family lines. A mandatory rule about splitting will probably be submitted for approval before the F11 release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 17:07:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:07:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812201707.mBKH73BJ029445@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477332 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 17:07:02 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:07:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477332] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477332 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: baekmuk-ttf-fonts AssignedTo: cchance at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: petersen at redhat.com, cchance at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Blocks: 477044 Classification: Fedora After more than a month of consultation, feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved by FESCO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Package maintainers must now convert their packages in rawhide to the new templates. The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can serve as examples if the templates published in the fontpackages-devel package are not clear enough: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts FPC and FESCO were not consulted on splitting or renaming packages, nevertheless the new templates make it fare easier to manage subpackages, so you're strongly encouraged to split your packages along font family lines. A mandatory rule about splitting will probably be submitted for approval before the F11 release. Further information on fonts packaging changes will be published on fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 17:09:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:09:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812201709.mBKH9h7E029715@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477333 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 17:11:39 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:11:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812201711.mBKHBdIq030275@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477334 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 17:09:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:09:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477333] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477333 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: brettfont-fonts AssignedTo: jonstanley at gmail.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: jonstanley at gmail.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Blocks: 477044 Classification: Fedora After more than a month of consultation, feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved by FESCO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Package maintainers must now convert their packages in rawhide to the new templates. The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can serve as examples if the templates published in the fontpackages-devel package are not clear enough: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts FPC and FESCO were not consulted on splitting or renaming packages, nevertheless the new templates make it fare easier to manage subpackages, so you're strongly encouraged to split your packages along font family lines. A mandatory rule about splitting will probably be submitted for approval before the F11 release. Further information on fonts packaging changes will be published on fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 17:11:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:11:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477334] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477334 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: darkgarden-fonts AssignedTo: lyos.gemininorezel at gmail.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, lyos.gemininorezel at gmail.com Blocks: 477044 Classification: Fedora After more than a month of consultation, feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved by FESCO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Package maintainers must now convert their packages in rawhide to the new templates. The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can serve as examples if the templates published in the fontpackages-devel package are not clear enough: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts FPC and FESCO were not consulted on splitting or renaming packages, nevertheless the new templates make it fare easier to manage subpackages, so you're strongly encouraged to split your packages along font family lines. A mandatory rule about splitting will probably be submitted for approval before the F11 release. Further information on fonts packaging changes will be published on fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 17:13:41 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:13:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812201713.mBKHDfHG023445@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477335 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 17:13:40 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:13:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477335] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477335 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: doulos-fonts AssignedTo: roozbeh at gmail.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: roozbeh at gmail.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Blocks: 477044 Classification: Fedora After more than a month of consultation, feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved by FESCO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Package maintainers must now convert their packages in rawhide to the new templates. The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can serve as examples if the templates published in the fontpackages-devel package are not clear enough: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts FPC and FESCO were not consulted on splitting or renaming packages, nevertheless the new templates make it fare easier to manage subpackages, so you're strongly encouraged to split your packages along font family lines. A mandatory rule about splitting will probably be submitted for approval before the F11 release. Further information on fonts packaging changes will be published on fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 17:15:59 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477336] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477336 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: freefont AssignedTo: orion at cora.nwra.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: orion at cora.nwra.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Blocks: 477044 Classification: Fedora After more than a month of consultation, feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved by FESCO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Package maintainers must now convert their packages in rawhide to the new templates. The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can serve as examples if the templates published in the fontpackages-devel package are not clear enough: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts FPC and FESCO were not consulted on splitting or renaming packages, nevertheless the new templates make it fare easier to manage subpackages, so you're strongly encouraged to split your packages along font family lines. A mandatory rule about splitting will probably be submitted for approval before the F11 release. Further information on fonts packaging changes will be published on fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 17:15:59 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:15:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812201715.mBKHFxNd030947@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477336 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 17:18:17 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:18:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812201718.mBKHIHHL031260@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477337 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 17:18:16 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 12:18:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477337] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477337 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: gentium-fonts AssignedTo: roozbeh at gmail.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: roozbeh at gmail.com, kevin at tummy.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Blocks: 477044 Classification: Fedora After more than a month of consultation, feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved by FESCO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Package maintainers must now convert their packages in rawhide to the new templates. The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can serve as examples if the templates published in the fontpackages-devel package are not clear enough: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts FPC and FESCO were not consulted on splitting or renaming packages, nevertheless the new templates make it fare easier to manage subpackages, so you're strongly encouraged to split your packages along font family lines. A mandatory rule about splitting will probably be submitted for approval before the F11 release. Further information on fonts packaging changes will be published on fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:00:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:00:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477362] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210000.mBL00OJR023419@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477362 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 20 23:58:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:58:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477362] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477362 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: dejavu-fonts AssignedTo: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide.If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:04:29 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:04:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477363] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477363 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: dejavu-fonts AssignedTo: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages \ - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide.If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:11:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:11:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477364] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210011.mBL0BEG6017698@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477364 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:11:13 EDT --- foo
bar -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:09:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:09:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477364] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477364 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: dejavu-fonts AssignedTo: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: \n \n \n - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages \ - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide.If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:15:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:15:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477365] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477365 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: dejavu-fonts AssignedTo: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:20:27 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:20:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477366] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210020.mBL0KR17018904@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477366 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:17:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:17:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477365] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210017.mBL0Ha5K018402@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477365 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:17:23 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:17:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477366] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477366 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: dejavu-fonts AssignedTo: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:19:58 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:19:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477367] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477367 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: dejavu-fonts AssignedTo: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:23:45 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:23:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477367] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210023.mBL0NjG1019133@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477367 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:24:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:24:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477373] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: cjkunifonts AssignedTo: cchance at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: petersen at redhat.com, cchance at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:31:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:31:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477408] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477408 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: khmeros-fonts AssignedTo: mnowak at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: mnowak at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:29:17 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:29:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477398] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477398 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: icelandic-fonts AssignedTo: jonstanley at gmail.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: jonstanley at gmail.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:27:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:27:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477387] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477387 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: fonts-hebrew-fancy AssignedTo: danken at cs.technion.ac.il ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: danken at cs.technion.ac.il, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:28:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:28:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477395] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477395 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: hanazono-fonts AssignedTo: tagoh at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: tagoh at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:27:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:27:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477389] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477389 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: ghostscript-fonts AssignedTo: twaugh at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: twaugh at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:30:10 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:30:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477403] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477403 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: jomolhari-fonts AssignedTo: mgarski at post.pl ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: mgarski at post.pl, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:31:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:31:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477410] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477410 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: liberation-fonts AssignedTo: cchance at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: cchance at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:34:00 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:34:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477425] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477425 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: mgopen-fonts AssignedTo: paskalis at di.uoa.gr ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: paskalis at di.uoa.gr, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:35:54 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:35:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477436] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477436 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: padauk-fonts AssignedTo: mvaliyav at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: mvaliyav at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:33:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:33:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477423] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477423 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: mathml-fonts AssignedTo: rdieter at math.unl.edu ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: rdieter at math.unl.edu, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:32:47 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:32:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477418] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477418 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: linux-libertine-fonts AssignedTo: frank at scirocco-5v-turbo.de ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: frank at scirocco-5v-turbo.de, kevin at tummy.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:34:41 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:34:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477429] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477429 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: myanmar3-unicode-fonts AssignedTo: mvaliyav at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: mvaliyav at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:34:51 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:34:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477430] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477430 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: nafees-web-naskh-fonts AssignedTo: bernie at codewiz.org ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: bernie at codewiz.org, johnp at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:33:07 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:33:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477420] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477420 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: lohit-fonts AssignedTo: rbhalera at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: petersen at redhat.com, rbhalera at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:40:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:40:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477462] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477462 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: tetex-font-kerkis AssignedTo: paskalis at di.uoa.gr ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: paskalis at di.uoa.gr, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:38:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:38:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477453] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477453 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: sazanami-fonts AssignedTo: tagoh at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: tagoh at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:40:13 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:40:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477461] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477461 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: tetex-font-cm-lgc AssignedTo: paskalis at di.uoa.gr ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: paskalis at di.uoa.gr, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:41:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:41:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477468] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477468 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: tiresias-fonts AssignedTo: tcallawa at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: tcallawa at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:39:52 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:39:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477459] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477459 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: sportrop-fonts AssignedTo: jonstanley at gmail.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: jonstanley at gmail.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:39:32 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:39:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477457] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477457 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: silkscreen-fonts AssignedTo: tcallawa at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: tcallawa at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:38:08 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:38:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477449] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477449 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: roadstencil-fonts AssignedTo: jonstanley at gmail.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: jonstanley at gmail.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:38:29 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:38:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477451] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477451 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: samyak-fonts AssignedTo: psatpute at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, psatpute at redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:41:16 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:41:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477467] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477467 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: tibetan-machine-uni-fonts AssignedTo: mgarski at post.pl ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: mgarski at post.pl, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:39:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:39:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477458] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477458 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: smc-fonts AssignedTo: psatpute at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, psatpute at redhat.com, rajeeshknambiar at gmail.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:43:01 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:43:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477477] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477477 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: urw-fonts AssignedTo: than at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: than at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:42:51 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:42:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477476] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477476 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: unikurd-web-font AssignedTo: mnowak at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: mnowak at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:44:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:44:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477486] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477486 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: xorg-x11-fonts AssignedTo: xgl-maint at redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: xgl-maint at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:42:29 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:42:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477474] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477474 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: un-core-fonts AssignedTo: smallvil at get9.net ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: petersen at redhat.com, smallvil at get9.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:43:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:43:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477479] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477479 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: VLGothic-fonts AssignedTo: ryo-dairiki at users.sourceforge.net ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: tagoh at redhat.com, ryo-dairiki at users.sourceforge.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs at redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477364] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0u6CS026091@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477364 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:19 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477363] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uJ7B026116@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477363 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:36 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uaa8003346@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477431 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tZK8001637@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477388 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:07 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0u7iD002500@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477412 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:16 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vG8g004331@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477461 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:57 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uvU1003852@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477447 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:52 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tqX2002026@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477401 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:39 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tdAI001775@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477391 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0ubT2003391@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477432 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uKFo002930@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477420 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:07 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0v7D1004096@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477455 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vElU004286@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477460 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:05 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0v5Dg004047@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477454 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0ugJk003521@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477435 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:07 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0t7pU000989@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477369 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:10 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tA1x001079@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477371 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:55 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0ut98003796@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477446 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:13 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uDpa002707@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477416 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tcE1001730@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477390 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:10 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uAb2002586@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477414 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uMpW002988@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477421 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:09 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0t9c0001034@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477370 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tQJ3001410@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477382 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:55 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0ttvZ002129@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477403 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0trln002075@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477402 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:25 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uPbU003056@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477423 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:11 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uBwe002662@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477415 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tMgn001321@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477379 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:54 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0usES003752@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477445 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:28 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uSAf003145@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477425 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:27 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tRBY001455@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477383 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:05 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0t5Ni000939@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477368 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:39 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0udQW003436@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477433 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:13 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vDIH004234@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477459 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uQB6003101@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477424 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:36 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0taXx001684@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477389 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:16 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uGPI002810@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477418 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:33 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tXg8001581@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477387 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:13 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tDZP001145@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477373 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:29 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tTdH001500@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477384 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:10 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vAki004164@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477457 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:29 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uTRv003194@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477426 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:21 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vLcw004435@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477465 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:31 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uV8K003247@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477427 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:19 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tJBX001255@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477377 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:18 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uIeL002872@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477419 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:04 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0v4sD003998@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477453 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:41 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tfWS001820@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477392 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uEE6002755@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477417 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:01 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477408] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0u1a1002293@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477408 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:01 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:11 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477458] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vB2M004193@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477458 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:10 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477453] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0v39k003978@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477453 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:03 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:44 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477395] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tiqb001881@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477395 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:43 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:12 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477373] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tCet001116@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477373 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:12 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477423] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uOks003040@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477423 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:24 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:01 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477451] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0v1Wv003933@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477451 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:00 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:12 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477459] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vCL4004218@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477459 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:12 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:54 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477403] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tsWp002103@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477403 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:54 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:15 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477461] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vFuA004310@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477461 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:15 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:17 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477462] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vH5O004355@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477462 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:16 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:27 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477425] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uRw1003125@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477425 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:27 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:04 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477410] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0u4Vv002402@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477410 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:03 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:36 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477389] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0taJW001665@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477389 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:35 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:48 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477398] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tmlS001946@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477398 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:47 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477436] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uhDZ003550@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477436 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:42 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477420] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uKVV002906@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477420 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:19 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:34 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477430] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uYgm003313@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477430 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:33 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:33 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477429] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uXaI003292@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477429 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:32 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:32 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477387] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tWcu001560@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477387 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:32 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:09 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477457] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0v9TB004140@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477457 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:09 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:59 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477449] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uxUE003900@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477449 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:58 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:16 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477418] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uGZX002789@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477418 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:15 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:32 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477428] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uWju003275@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477428 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:31 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:08 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477413] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0u88b002549@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477413 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:07 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:04 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477368] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0t4j0000915@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477368 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:03 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:59 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477406] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0txqf002220@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477406 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:58 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:39 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477391] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tdBi001758@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477391 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:38 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477369] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0t69N000964@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477369 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:05 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:19 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477464] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vJWf004391@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477464 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:18 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:09 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477371] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0t9Gx001054@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477371 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:09 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:40 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477434] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0ueYj003465@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477434 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:39 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:00 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477407] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0u01u002267@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477407 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:59 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477390] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tbnp001709@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477390 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:37 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477427] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uUlN003224@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477427 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:30 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:11 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477372] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tBlh001104@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477372 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:10 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:23 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477422] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uNhl003016@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477422 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:22 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:40 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477392] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0teKK001800@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477392 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:40 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477400] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0to7W001984@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477400 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:49 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:56 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477404] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tube002159@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477404 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:55 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:28 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477384] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tS2K001479@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477384 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:28 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:25 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477382] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tPYc001389@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477382 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:25 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:00 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477450] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0v09Y003916@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477450 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:59 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477432] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0ubNp003370@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477432 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:36 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:16 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477375] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tGmc001201@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477375 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:15 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477455] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0v66C004076@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477455 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:06 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477442] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uouK003673@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477442 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:49 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:47 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477397] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tllL001924@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477397 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:46 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:47 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477439] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0ulkd003620@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477439 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:46 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:34 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477388] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tYsj001616@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477388 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:33 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:45 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477396] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tj3T001903@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477396 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:45 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:52 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477444] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uquX003715@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477444 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:51 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477424] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uQUY003084@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477424 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:25 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:17 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477376] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tHcL001223@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477376 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:16 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:23 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477380] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tNqD001346@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477380 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:22 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477433] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0ucPD003415@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477433 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:38 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:21 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477379] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tL8c001301@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477379 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:21 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:12 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477416] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uCi2002691@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477416 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:12 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:49 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477441] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0unLv003653@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477441 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:48 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477417] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uEwD002731@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477417 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:13 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:49 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477399] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tn3X001963@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477399 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:48 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:08 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477370] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0t8Dn001005@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477370 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:07 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:57 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477405] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tv2m002181@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477405 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:56 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:58 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477448] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uwcg003880@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477448 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:57 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477394] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0thp5001862@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477394 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:42 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:31 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477386] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tVfk001547@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477386 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:30 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:44 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477437] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0ui9X003571@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477437 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:43 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:17 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477419] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uHGM002847@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477419 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:17 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:41 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477435] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0ufij003501@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477435 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:41 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:51 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477401] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tptQ002009@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477401 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:51 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:02 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477452] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0v2qi003958@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477452 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:01 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477374] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tEQv001180@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477374 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:13 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:09 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477414] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0u9FZ002565@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477414 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:09 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477460] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vEIJ004266@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477460 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:13 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:18 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477463] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vIWL004371@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477463 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:17 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:21 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477421] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uLCk002962@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477421 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:21 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:51 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477443] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0upIb003690@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477443 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:50 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477402] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tr58002058@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477402 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:52 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:05 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477411] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0u5M9002460@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477411 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:04 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:08 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477456] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0v8Ee004124@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477456 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:07 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477445] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0urfB003732@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477445 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:53 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:56 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477447] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uu8B003824@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477447 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:56 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:05 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477454] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0v56V004027@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477454 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:04 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477385] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tUKZ001530@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477385 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:29 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:11 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477415] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uBri002642@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477415 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:10 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477393] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tgcW001844@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477393 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:41 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477412] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0u6fE002484@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477412 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:06 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477465] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vKF5004411@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477465 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:20 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477378] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tK53001284@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477378 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:19 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:27 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477383] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tRD7001439@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477383 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:26 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:18 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477377] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tICu001239@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477377 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:18 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:55:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:55:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477381] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210055.mBL0tOWV001368@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477381 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:55:23 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:55 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477446] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0utMZ003780@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477446 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:54 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477431] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uZbT003330@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477431 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:35 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:29 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477426] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uTrb003169@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477426 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:28 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477409] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0u3hB002314@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477409 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:02 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:48 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477440] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0umBX003637@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477440 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:47 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:56:45 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:56:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477438] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210056.mBL0uj2L003596@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477438 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:56:45 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 01:00:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:00:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476951] missing dependencies of emacs: xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210100.mBL10gjj026835@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476951 --- Comment #1 from Matej Cepl 2008-12-20 20:00:41 EDT --- Isn't this just some temporary glitch in koji/bodhi/whatever? I certainly have this package in the current Rawhide. Trying to scratch build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1012838 -- let's what happens. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vUor004962@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477471 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:49 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vnYN005935@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477485 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:45 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vjrk005666@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477482 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vk6s005740@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477483 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:34 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vYJN005178@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477474 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:27 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vR0L004768@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477469 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vgud005491@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477480 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:48 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vm7a005837@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477484 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vb98005299@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477476 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vZbA005240@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477475 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:51 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vp8D006029@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477486 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vh1w005587@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477481 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vMlx004501@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477466 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vOJC004607@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477467 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:28 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vSmx004868@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |477470 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477477] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vcUR005344@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477477 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:37 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:33 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477474] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vXk2005128@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477474 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:33 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:25 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477468] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vPxU004660@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477468 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:24 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:23 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477467] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vNAq004557@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477467 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:23 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477486] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vohQ005995@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477486 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:50 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:36 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477476] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0va5q005276@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477476 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:36 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:40 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477479] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0veLm005412@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477479 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:39 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:41 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477480] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vfd6005449@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477480 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:41 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:47 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477484] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vlmX005795@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477484 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:47 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477466] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vMgN004467@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477466 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:21 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477475] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vZOh005210@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477475 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:34 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477483] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vkhe005706@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477483 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:45 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:32 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477473] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vWv8005070@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477473 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:31 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477469] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vQMf004728@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477469 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:26 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:52 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477487] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vqZL006082@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477487 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:51 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:29 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477471] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vTOW004912@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477471 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:29 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477488] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vrI4006134@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477488 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:52 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:44 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477482] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vicn005639@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477482 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:44 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:49 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:49 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477485] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vnpb005899@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477485 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:48 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:39 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477478] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vdRK005378@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477478 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:38 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477481] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vhAO005543@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477481 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:42 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:31 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477472] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vVdt005014@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477472 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:30 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 00:57:28 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:57:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477470] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210057.mBL0vSdM004826@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477470 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh | |at.com Blocks| |477044 --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-20 19:57:27 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: ? Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages ? our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 01:08:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:08:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210108.mBL18UDL027994@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477426, which changed state. Bug 477426 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477426 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 01:08:29 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 20:08:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477426] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210108.mBL18TxO027970@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477426 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka 2008-12-20 20:08:28 EDT --- Not a bug for this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 02:18:05 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:18:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477392] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210218.mBL2I5kO018678@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477392 --- Comment #2 from Tim Fenn 2008-12-20 21:18:04 EDT --- The presence of a .ttf file in gpp4-devel is a result of running doxygen to generate the latex doc files - which I can either remove altogether and just include the html doc files, or process the latex doc files and only include the output pdf... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 03:41:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:41:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477431] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210341.mBL3fO8r016657@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477431 --- Comment #2 from Karen Pease 2008-12-20 22:41:23 EDT --- It only uses a single font that it shares with nothing else; do we really have to do this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 05:30:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:30:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210530.mBL5UKCj032171@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477488, which changed state. Bug 477488 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477488 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 05:30:19 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:30:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477488] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210530.mBL5UJsK032128@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477488 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka 2008-12-21 00:30:19 EDT --- Well, actually xplanet is not font package, however it is found that xplanet is using its private ttf file. Replaced by freefont ttf file, marking as CLOSED rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bernie at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 06:28:47 2008 From: bernie at fedoraproject.org (Bernie Innocenti) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:28:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/nafees-web-naskh-fonts/devel nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec, 1.1, 1.2 Message-ID: <20081221062847.657D470131@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: bernie Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/nafees-web-naskh-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv23319 Modified Files: nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec Log Message: * Sun Dec 21 2008 Bernie Innocenti 1.0-2 - Updated to current Fedora font packaging guidelines Index: nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/nafees-web-naskh-fonts/devel/nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec 6 Oct 2007 03:50:20 -0000 1.1 +++ nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec 21 Dec 2008 06:28:16 -0000 1.2 @@ -1,10 +1,11 @@ +%define fontname nafees-web-naskh +%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} %define archivename NafeesWeb %define archivedate 20070820 -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/nafees -Name: nafees-web-naskh-fonts +Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 1.0 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} Summary: Nafees Web font for writing Urdu in the Naskh script Group: User Interface/X @@ -12,10 +13,9 @@ URL: http://www.crulp.org/Downloads/NafeesWeb.zip # NOTE: the original archive is unversioned, so we rename it to add a date stamp Source0: %{archivename}-%{archivedate}.zip -BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) +BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) BuildArch: noarch -Provides: nafees-web-naskh-fonts = %{version}-%{release} -Requires: fontconfig +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description @@ -32,38 +32,24 @@ #nop %install -rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT +rm -rf %{buildroot} #fonts -install -d -m 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 *.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontdir} +install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0644 *.ttf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} %clean -rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT +rm -rf %{buildroot} +%_font_pkg *.ttf -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} -fi - - -%postun -if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then - if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} - fi -fi - - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) - +%doc %dir %{fontdir} -%{fontdir}/*.ttf - %changelog +* Sun Dec 21 2008 Bernie Innocenti 1.0-2 +- Updated to current Fedora font packaging guidelines + * Sat Sep 15 2007 Bernardo Innocenti 1.0-1 - Initial packaging, borrowing many things from abyssinica-fonts From bernie at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 06:40:11 2008 From: bernie at fedoraproject.org (Bernie Innocenti) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:40:11 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/nafees-web-naskh-fonts/devel nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec, 1.2, 1.3 Message-ID: <20081221064011.525E07012F@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: bernie Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/nafees-web-naskh-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27070 Modified Files: nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec Log Message: * Sun Dec 21 2008 Bernie Innocenti 1.0-3 - Typo: fontdir -> _fontdir Index: nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/nafees-web-naskh-fonts/devel/nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec 21 Dec 2008 06:28:16 -0000 1.2 +++ nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec 21 Dec 2008 06:39:39 -0000 1.3 @@ -1,11 +1,10 @@ %define fontname nafees-web-naskh -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} %define archivename NafeesWeb %define archivedate 20070820 Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 1.0 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} Summary: Nafees Web font for writing Urdu in the Naskh script Group: User Interface/X @@ -35,8 +34,8 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot} #fonts -install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 *.ttf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 *.ttf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} %clean @@ -45,9 +44,12 @@ %_font_pkg *.ttf %doc -%dir %{fontdir} +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Dec 21 2008 Bernie Innocenti 1.0-3 +- Typo: fontdir -> _fontdir + * Sun Dec 21 2008 Bernie Innocenti 1.0-2 - Updated to current Fedora font packaging guidelines From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 06:50:13 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:50:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210650.mBL6oDKS025174@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477384, which changed state. Bug 477384 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477384 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 06:50:12 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:50:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477384] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210650.mBL6oCwO025150@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477384 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG --- Comment #2 from Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2008-12-21 01:50:11 EDT --- feh only installs a .ttf for private use and so the new font packaging guidelines don't apply to it. Having said that, the font that it supplies is GPL without exceptions, and I have a patch to replace it with DejaVu Sans if this is preferred. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bernie at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 07:20:46 2008 From: bernie at fedoraproject.org (Bernie Innocenti) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/nafees-web-naskh-fonts/devel nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec, 1.3, 1.4 Message-ID: <20081221072046.0D20A7012F@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: bernie Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/nafees-web-naskh-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv1721 Modified Files: nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec Log Message: * Wed Dec 21 2008 Bernie Innocenti - 0.83.3-6 - Add missing dependencies on xorg-x11-utils, dbus-x11 and openssh Index: nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/nafees-web-naskh-fonts/devel/nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec 21 Dec 2008 06:39:39 -0000 1.3 +++ nafees-web-naskh-fonts.spec 21 Dec 2008 07:20:15 -0000 1.4 @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 1.0 -Release: 3%{?dist} +Release: 4%{?dist} Summary: Nafees Web font for writing Urdu in the Naskh script Group: User Interface/X @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) BuildArch: noarch Requires: fontpackages-filesystem +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel %description @@ -47,6 +48,9 @@ %dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Dec 21 2008 Bernie Innocenti 1.0-4 +- Builddep on fontpackages-devel + * Sun Dec 21 2008 Bernie Innocenti 1.0-3 - Typo: fontdir -> _fontdir From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 07:30:10 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 02:30:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210730.mBL7UAV4031379@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477430, which changed state. Bug 477430 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477430 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 07:30:09 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 02:30:09 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477430] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210730.mBL7U9a3031352@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477430 Bernie Innocenti changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Bernie Innocenti 2008-12-21 02:30:08 EDT --- I updated nafees-web-naskh-fonts to the new font packaging guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 08:20:13 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:20:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210820.mBL8KDju006969@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-21 03:20:12 EDT --- fontpackages-1.11-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 08:20:16 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:20:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210820.mBL8KGH0007009@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 08:34:21 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:34:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 471103] Font spacing wrong in menus and text In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210834.mBL8YLb5012769@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471103 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-21 03:34:20 EDT --- openoffice.org-2.4.2-18.3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update openoffice.org'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-11549 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 08:46:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:46:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812210846.mBL8kMwm017068@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-21 03:46:21 EDT --- fontpackages-1.11-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 10:06:55 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:06:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477431] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211006.mBLA6tcB001149@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477431 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 05:06:55 EDT --- Those are the rules yes and a single font is sufficient to be a licensing problem. As explained you have the choice of creating a proper font package or subpackage for your font, or adding a dep to an existing font package, with a symlink to the file in the font package if your app is not fontconfig-aware (in which case asking upstream to add fontconfig support would be a good idea mid term) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 10:11:08 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:11:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477392] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211011.mBLAB8DG021084@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477392 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 05:11:07 EDT --- Both solutions are probably more user-friendly than packaging latex files anyway. Alternatively, you can check with the doxygen maintainer why the generated latex files do not use system fonts (xetex should be able to do it) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 10:18:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:18:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477384] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211018.mBLAIkeM003174@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477384 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 05:18:45 EDT --- The packaging font guidelines apply to all fonts ? it's not nice to package private fonts, others would like to use your font too ? having private fonts go through the normal packaging process ensures their license is checked properly. All too often private fonts are seen as accessory and packaged even though they violate our licensing rules You always have the option to drop your private font and depend on an existing package such as one of the DejaVu packages, with a symlink if you need one (it's been split so you don't need to pull in the three fonts, just the one you need) It's the same situation as private static libs -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 10:38:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:38:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477392] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211038.mBLAcOxi007148@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477392 --- Comment #4 from Tim Fenn 2008-12-21 05:38:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Both solutions are probably more user-friendly than packaging latex files > anyway. > I just yanked the latex files, since when I tried processing them, it bombed with several errors. > Alternatively, you can check with the doxygen maintainer why the generated > latex files do not use system fonts (xetex should be able to do it) I'll check on this. In the meantime, I'll just include the html files with the rpm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 10:47:05 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:47:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477380] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211047.mBLAl5Li008911@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477380 Alexey Torkhov changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #2 from Alexey Torkhov 2008-12-21 05:47:03 EDT --- This package has symlinks. Closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 10:47:05 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:47:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211047.mBLAl5C1008935@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 475593, which changed state. Bug 475593 Summary: Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Bug 477044 depends on bug 477380, which changed state. Bug 477380 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477380 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 10:49:02 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:49:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211049.mBLAn2H8028145@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477426, which changed state. Bug 477426 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477426 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 10:49:01 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:49:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477426] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211049.mBLAn1Zc028121@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477426 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 05:49:00 EDT --- It is very much a bug for this package. Our packaging guidelines changed in part to remove all the fontconfig scriplet copies in font packages so Behdad has a single place to change them when needed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 10:50:08 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 05:50:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473560] Replace bitstream-vera dependencies with dejavu dependencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211050.mBLAo8f0009620@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473560 Alexey Torkhov changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #1 from Alexey Torkhov 2008-12-21 05:50:07 EDT --- In compare with this package size, bitstream fonts are tiny. But, as they'll be gone in future, new release is referencing dejavu now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bernie at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 11:13:45 2008 From: bernie at fedoraproject.org (Bernie Innocenti) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:13:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/abyssinica-fonts/devel abyssinica-fonts.spec,1.2,1.3 Message-ID: <20081221111346.907897012F@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: bernie Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/abyssinica-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv13044 Modified Files: abyssinica-fonts.spec Log Message: * Sun Dec 21 2008 Bernie Innocenti 1.0-3 - Updated to current Fedora font packaging guidelines Index: abyssinica-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/abyssinica-fonts/devel/abyssinica-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- abyssinica-fonts.spec 6 Oct 2007 04:16:39 -0000 1.2 +++ abyssinica-fonts.spec 21 Dec 2008 11:13:12 -0000 1.3 @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/abyssinica +%define fontname abyssinica -Name: abyssinica-fonts +Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 1.0 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Release: 3%{?dist} Summary: SIL Abyssinica fonts Group: User Interface/X @@ -10,9 +10,11 @@ URL: http://scripts.sil.org/AbyssinicaSIL_Download # download from http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/render_download.php?site_id=nrsi&format=file&media_id=AbyssinicaSIL1.0.zip&filename=AbyssinicaSIL1.0.zip Source0: AbyssinicaSIL%{version}.zip -BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) +BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) BuildArch: noarch +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel BuildRequires: dos2unix # Providing the name of an upstream RPM @@ -42,40 +44,26 @@ %install -rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT +rm -rf %{buildroot} #fonts -install -d -m 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 *.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontdir} +install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 *.ttf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} %clean -rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT +rm -rf %{buildroot} -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} -fi +%_font_pkg *.ttf - -%postun -if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then - if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} - fi -fi - - -%files -%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc FONTLOG.txt OFL.txt OFL-FAQ.txt README.txt - -%dir %{fontdir} -%{fontdir}/*.ttf - +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Sun Dec 21 2008 Bernie Innocenti 1.0-3 +- Updated to current Fedora font packaging guidelines + * Thu Oct 04 2007 Todd Zullinger 1.0-2 - use upstream zip file as Source0 - fix license tag From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 11:16:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:16:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477330] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211116.mBLBGgFu014988@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477330 --- Comment #1 from Bernie Innocenti 2008-12-21 06:16:41 EDT --- Done. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1013368 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 11:17:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:17:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211117.mBLBHc11015166@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477330, which changed state. Bug 477330 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477330 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 11:17:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:17:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477330] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211117.mBLBHbom015140@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477330 Bernie Innocenti changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Bernie Innocenti 2008-12-21 06:17:36 EDT --- Done. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1013368 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 11:26:04 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:26:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477433] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211126.mBLBQ4fQ003086@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477433 Hans Ulrich Niedermann changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann 2008-12-21 06:26:03 EDT --- I'll take a look at this and try to find out what I am actually supposed to change in terminus-font. Looks like this is going to take several hours, so it won't happen within the next few days. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 11:48:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:48:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477433] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211148.mBLBmcU6007221@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477433 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 06:48:37 EDT --- The target of this bug is first F11 alpha. Take your time to do things properly and ask on the list if you need more info -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 12:35:19 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:35:19 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] abyssinica-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081221123519.4CCD0208605@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package abyssinica-fonts in Fedora devel was orphaned by bernie To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/abyssinica-fonts From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 12:35:23 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:35:23 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] abyssinica-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081221123523.7A96F20876C@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package abyssinica-fonts in Fedora OLPC 2 was orphaned by bernie To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/abyssinica-fonts From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 12:35:28 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:35:28 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] abyssinica-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081221123528.B0A83208D09@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package abyssinica-fonts in Fedora 8 was orphaned by bernie To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/abyssinica-fonts From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 12:35:31 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:35:31 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] abyssinica-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081221123531.B4AAD208605@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package abyssinica-fonts in Fedora 9 was orphaned by bernie To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/abyssinica-fonts From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 12:35:33 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:35:33 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] abyssinica-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081221123533.69452208D67@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package abyssinica-fonts in Fedora 10 was orphaned by bernie To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/abyssinica-fonts From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 12:35:40 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:35:40 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] abyssinica-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081221123540.266C820874A@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package abyssinica-fonts in Fedora 7 was orphaned by bernie To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/abyssinica-fonts From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 12:35:58 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:35:58 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] nafees-web-naskh-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081221123558.9054B208605@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package nafees-web-naskh-fonts in Fedora devel was orphaned by bernie To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/nafees-web-naskh-fonts From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 12:35:11 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 07:35:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477448] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211235.mBLCZBNq015817@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477448 --- Comment #2 from Hedayat Vatankhah 2008-12-21 07:35:10 EDT --- Yes, this package contains 1 font file, and it is not a font package. So, I think the best thing is to use system fonts. This package currently wants to load a .ttf font (it uses freetype). I wonder what is the best solution here. I might change set the package to use a special font, e.g. one of DejaVU fonts. What's your suggestion?! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 12:36:01 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:36:01 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] nafees-web-naskh-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081221123601.3E803208D09@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package nafees-web-naskh-fonts in Fedora 7 was orphaned by bernie To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/nafees-web-naskh-fonts From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 12:36:05 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:36:05 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] nafees-web-naskh-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081221123605.6BB97208DA6@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package nafees-web-naskh-fonts in Fedora 9 was orphaned by bernie To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/nafees-web-naskh-fonts From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 12:36:02 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:36:02 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] nafees-web-naskh-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081221123602.D7341208D66@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package nafees-web-naskh-fonts in Fedora 8 was orphaned by bernie To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/nafees-web-naskh-fonts From pkgdb at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 12:36:08 2008 From: pkgdb at fedoraproject.org (Fedora PackageDB) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:36:08 +0000 Subject: [pkgdb] nafees-web-naskh-fonts ownership updated Message-ID: <20081221123608.7AC78208DAA@bastion.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Package nafees-web-naskh-fonts in Fedora 10 was orphaned by bernie To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/nafees-web-naskh-fonts From nim at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 12:38:27 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:38:27 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/fontpackages/devel fontpackages.spec, 1.2, 1.3 import.log, 1.2, 1.3 Message-ID: <20081221123827.476B67012F@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv29824/devel Modified Files: fontpackages.spec import.log Log Message: fix url Index: fontpackages.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel/fontpackages.spec,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- fontpackages.spec 19 Dec 2008 22:38:08 -0000 1.2 +++ fontpackages.spec 21 Dec 2008 12:37:56 -0000 1.3 @@ -3,15 +3,14 @@ Name: fontpackages Version: 1.12 -Release: 1%{?dist} +Release: 2%{?dist} Summary: Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages Group: Development/System # Mostly means the scriptlets inserted via this package do not change the # license of the packages they're inserted in License: LGPLv3+ -# Or git://git.fedorahosted.org/fontpackages.git -URL: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fonts_SIG +URL: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages/ Source0: http://fedorahosted.org/releases/f/o/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 BuildArch: noarch BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) @@ -91,10 +90,12 @@ %changelog +* Sun Dec 21 2008 Nicolas Mailhot +- 1.12-2 +??? Change homepage * Fri Dec 19 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.12-1 ??? Add another macro to allow building fontconfig without cycling - * Wed Dec 10 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.11-1 ??? Add actual fedorahosted references Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- import.log 19 Dec 2008 22:38:08 -0000 1.2 +++ import.log 21 Dec 2008 12:37:56 -0000 1.3 @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ fontpackages-1_11-1_fc11:HEAD:fontpackages-1.11-1.fc11.src.rpm:1229379496 fontpackages-1_12-1_fc11:HEAD:fontpackages-1.12-1.fc11.src.rpm:1229726060 +fontpackages-1_12-2_fc11:HEAD:fontpackages-1.12-2.fc11.src.rpm:1229863050 From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 13:00:32 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:00:32 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477448] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211300.mBLD0WvI019980@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477448 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 08:00:30 EDT --- If your app is fontconfig-aware you can just use the default "sans" generic font. If it isn't you really should ask upstream to fix it. For an app that does not use fontconfig, you need to: 1. add a dep to one of the default distro font packages (one of the dejavu fonts for example, they've been split in rawhide) 2. make your app use it, either by configuring the absolute path where this font package installs its ttf or by symlinking this ttf somewhere else in your package You most definitely do not want to continue shipping a font file in your app, if you don't intend to make it a proper font package or subpackage, with the associated license audits. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 14:20:48 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:20:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477368] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211420.mBLEKmkm016800@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477368 --- Comment #2 from Patrice Dumas 2008-12-21 09:20:47 EDT --- I had a look and it indeed makes sense to split out the fonts. This means * reviewing separately the i18n-fonts package which should not be a problem * reviewing separately ogonkify which may be a bit more complicated (I just spotted an afm from adobe with all rights reserved...), and make sure that the ogokify from a2ps is not used. When I reviewed a2ps I verified that ogonkify in a2ps and upstream was the same, maybe this should be reverified. * adjusting the paths in a2ps (maybe in a2ps-4.13-etc.patch) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 14:35:45 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:35:45 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477368] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211435.mBLEZjvX005602@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477368 --- Comment #3 from Patrice Dumas 2008-12-21 09:35:43 EDT --- i18n fonts are at (no home page as far as I can tell): ftp://ftp.enst.fr/pub/unix/a2ps/i18n-fonts-0.1.tar.gz ogonkify seems to be a: http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~jch/software/ogonkify/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 15:10:13 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:10:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477397] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211510.mBLFADbv011391@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477397 --- Comment #3 from Patrice Dumas 2008-12-21 10:10:13 EDT --- Also are there type1 variants of DejaVu fonts in fedora? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 15:09:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:09:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477397] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211509.mBLF9ZVC011036@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477397 --- Comment #2 from Patrice Dumas 2008-12-21 10:09:34 EDT --- Looking at the font files, there is: Notice (Copyright (c) 2003 by Bitstream, Inc. All Rights Reserved.) %Copyright: Copyright (c) 2003 by Bitstream, Inc. All Rights Reserved. %Copyright: DejaVu changes are in public domain Comment Copyright URW Software, Copyright 1997 by URW Comment Creation Date: 10/21/1999 Comment See the file COPYING (GNU General Public License) for license conditions. % Copyright URW Software, Copyright 1997 by URW % URW Software, Copyright 1997 by URW % See the file COPYING (GNU General Public License) for license conditions. % As a special exception, permission is granted to include this font % program in a Postscript or PDF file that consists of a document that % contains text to be displayed or printed using this font, regardless % of the conditions or license applying to the document itself. So it looks like those fonts were taken from elsewhere, though it is not completly clear to me where they come from. grepping in /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/ doesn't exactly lead to the same. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 15:25:55 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:25:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477397] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211525.mBLFPttk014163@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477397 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 10:25:54 EDT --- That seems the typical font licensing mess. I don't even want to look at it, that's something for spot if you want to keep those files. Do you really need the files in Type1 form? I suppose it may be possible to convert DejaVu to Type1 at build time, though since the Type1 format is very limited, that will be a huge mess with quality loss and conflicts with the main dejavu truetype fonts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 16:08:07 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:08:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477435] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211608.mBLG87mJ020298@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477435 --- Comment #2 from Caolan McNamara 2008-12-21 11:08:06 EDT --- I imagine this is due to the inclusion of /usr/lib/openoffice.org/basis3.0/share/fonts/truetype/opens___.ttf which is the very openoffice.org-specific opensymbol font which provides some dingbat symbols which are used with a "magic" conversion table to provide conversions for wingdings for msoffice import and for conversion of the even more obscure "starbats" font from old versions of StarOffice documents. Its definitely not a general-purpose font, and I'm not sure it has value outside OpenOffice.org, its more a "means-to-an-end" to support a conversion mechanism for wingdings and starbats. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 16:18:15 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:18:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477435] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211618.mBLGIFAh021786@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477435 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 11:18:14 EDT --- I'm quite sure it has value for all our other office apps which need to deal with OO.o documents that reference this font (of course I hope SUN did use unicode encoding, but even if they didn't, as long as there are documents that reference this, it's not a good idea to keep it private) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From nim at fedoraproject.org Sun Dec 21 17:19:20 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:19:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel .cvsignore, 1.51, 1.52 dejavu-fonts.spec, 1.91, 1.92 import.log, 1.8, 1.9 sources, 1.51, 1.52 dejavu-fonts-2.26-fontconfig.patch, 1.1, NONE Message-ID: <20081221171921.007877012F@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv16908/devel Modified Files: .cvsignore dejavu-fonts.spec import.log sources Removed Files: dejavu-fonts-2.26-fontconfig.patch Log Message: 2.28 Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.51 retrieving revision 1.52 diff -u -r1.51 -r1.52 --- .cvsignore 17 Dec 2008 20:11:02 -0000 1.51 +++ .cvsignore 21 Dec 2008 17:18:47 -0000 1.52 @@ -1 +1 @@ -dejavu-fonts-2.27.tar.bz2 +dejavu-fonts-2.28.tar.bz2 Index: dejavu-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel/dejavu-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.91 retrieving revision 1.92 diff -u -r1.91 -r1.92 --- dejavu-fonts.spec 17 Dec 2008 20:11:02 -0000 1.91 +++ dejavu-fonts.spec 21 Dec 2008 17:18:48 -0000 1.92 @@ -27,15 +27,14 @@ Name: %{fontname}-fonts -Version: 2.27 -Release: 7%{?alphatag}%{?dist} +Version: 2.28 +Release: 1%{?alphatag}%{?dist} Summary: DejaVu fonts Group: User Interface/X License: Bitstream Vera and Public Domain URL: http://%{fontname}.sf.net/ Source0: %{?!alphatag:http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{fontname}}%{?alphatag:%{fontname}.sourceforge.net/snapshots}/%{archivename}.tar.bz2 -Patch0: %{name}-2.26-fontconfig.patch BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) # Older fontforge versions will not work due to sfd format changes @@ -52,7 +51,7 @@ %package compat -Summary: DejaVu fonts, compatibility +Summary: DejaVu fonts compatibility package Group: User Interface/X Obsoletes: dejavu-fonts < 2.26-3 @@ -65,7 +64,7 @@ %package lgc-compat -Summary: DejaVu fonts, LGC compatibility +Summary: DejaVu fonts, LGC compatibility package Group: User Interface/X Obsoletes: dejavu-lgc-fonts < 2.26-3 @@ -77,7 +76,7 @@ %package common -Summary: DejaVu fonts, common files (documentation???) +Summary: Common files for Dejavu fonts (documentation???) Group: User Interface/X Requires: fontpackages-filesystem @@ -90,7 +89,7 @@ %package sans -Summary: DejaVu, variable-width sans-serif font faces +Summary: Variable-width sans-serif font faces Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} @@ -107,7 +106,7 @@ %package serif -Summary: DejaVu, variable-width serif font faces +Summary: Variable-width serif font faces Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} @@ -124,7 +123,7 @@ %package sans-mono -Summary: DejaVu, monospace sans-serif font faces +Summary: Monospace sans-serif font faces Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} @@ -141,7 +140,7 @@ %package lgc-sans -Summary: DejaVu, variable-width sans-serif font faces, Latin-Greek-Cyrillic subset +Summary: Variable-width sans-serif font faces, Latin-Greek-Cyrillic subset Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} @@ -157,7 +156,7 @@ %package lgc-serif -Summary: DejaVu, variable-width serif font faces, Latin-Greek-Cyrillic subset +Summary: Variable-width serif font faces, Latin-Greek-Cyrillic subset Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} @@ -173,7 +172,7 @@ %package lgc-sans-mono -Summary: DejaVu, monospace sans-serif font faces, Latin-Greek-Cyrillic subset +Summary: Monospace sans-serif font faces, Latin-Greek-Cyrillic subset Group: User Interface/X Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} @@ -190,7 +189,6 @@ %prep %setup -q -n %{archivename} -%patch0 -p1 %build @@ -239,6 +237,13 @@ %changelog +* Sun Dec 21 2008 +- 2.28-1 +??? Update to latest release +??? Drop upstreamed fontconfig patch +??? Remove DejaVu from most summaries + + * Sat Dec 6 2008 - 2.27-7 ?? Add explicit conflicts to help yum Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.8 retrieving revision 1.9 diff -u -r1.8 -r1.9 --- import.log 17 Dec 2008 20:11:02 -0000 1.8 +++ import.log 21 Dec 2008 17:18:48 -0000 1.9 @@ -6,3 +6,4 @@ dejavu-fonts-2_26-5_fc11:HEAD:dejavu-fonts-2.26-5.fc11.src.rpm:1226174018 dejavu-fonts-2_26-6_fc11:HEAD:dejavu-fonts-2.26-6.fc11.src.rpm:1226221359 dejavu-fonts-2_27-7_fc11:HEAD:dejavu-fonts-2.27-7.fc11.src.rpm:1229544635 +dejavu-fonts-2_28-1_fc11:HEAD:dejavu-fonts-2.28-1.fc11.src.rpm:1229879833 Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel/sources,v retrieving revision 1.51 retrieving revision 1.52 diff -u -r1.51 -r1.52 --- sources 17 Dec 2008 20:11:02 -0000 1.51 +++ sources 21 Dec 2008 17:18:48 -0000 1.52 @@ -1 +1 @@ -bcab42220bcc27e094227ad6677d184d dejavu-fonts-2.27.tar.bz2 +fff585e19115dbe76746f6df66ab0dc6 dejavu-fonts-2.28.tar.bz2 --- dejavu-fonts-2.26-fontconfig.patch DELETED --- From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 18:06:48 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:06:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477431] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211806.mBLI6mwF004369@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477431 --- Comment #4 from Karen Pease 2008-12-21 13:06:47 EDT --- Okay, well, I'll work on it whenever I find a way to get access to the repository working again... as noted in another bug report, I get: Permission denied (publickey). cvs [commit aborted]: end of file from server (consult above messages if any) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 19:12:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:12:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477397] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812211912.mBLJCZB9028882@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477397 --- Comment #5 from Patrice Dumas 2008-12-21 14:12:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > That seems the typical font licensing mess. I don't even want to look at it, > that's something for spot if you want to keep those files. I am not sure. In my opinion it could also be that Adam should contact upstream... > Do you really need the files in Type1 form? As far as I can tell (after a bit of code reading), yes. It even looks like it can only embed .pfa and not .pfb. Those fonts are embedded in pdf or ps produced. I haven't completly understood how the name is constructed from the html, but the names of the font files that can be embedded are hardcoded in an array, corresponding with Courier-Bold.pfa Courier-BoldOblique.pfa Courier-Oblique.pfa Courier.pfa Dingbats.pfa Helvetica-Bold.pfa Helvetica-BoldOblique.pfa Helvetica-Oblique.pfa Helvetica.pfa Monospace-Bold.pfa Monospace-BoldOblique.pfa Monospace-Oblique.pfa Monospace.pfa Sans-Bold.pfa Sans-BoldOblique.pfa Sans-Oblique.pfa Sans.pfa Serif-Bold.pfa Serif-BoldOblique.pfa Serif-Oblique.pfa Serif-Roman.pfa Symbol.pfa Times-Bold.pfa Times-BoldItalic.pfa Times-Italic.pfa Times-Roman.pfa (all the fonts shipped in htmldoc). > I suppose it may be possible to > convert DejaVu to Type1 at build time, though since the Type1 format is very > limited, that will be a huge mess with quality loss and conflicts with the main > dejavu truetype fonts. In any case htmldoc doesn't use fontconfig therefore just packaging them without a possibility to be used by fontconfig could be possible. I don't know if you want to do that, though. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 20:08:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:08:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477397] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212008.mBLK8EPk005330@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477397 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 15:08:13 EDT --- It all looks like pfa forks of well-known (gs/urw/xorg/dejavu) fonts Unfortunately those fonts seems all one-of-a-kind So assuming they're all legit license-wise, you'll probably have to package them yourself It's a pity upstream spent time making its own fonts instead of supporting modern (TTF/OTF/fontconfig) standards. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 20:32:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:32:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477397] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212032.mBLKWoYM027334@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477397 --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 15:32:49 EDT --- Thinking about it some more, the correct plan for the htmldoc packager(s) is probably: 1. long-term: ask upstream to move to fontconfig/freetype/pango/cairo 2. short-term: * ask upstream what its original font sources were * if those fonts exist in type1 form in Fedora, link them from here * if those fonts do not exist in type1 form in Fedora, but have some other canonical type1 source, package this source properly * if they're strictly an htmldoc production, and have no other proper source (and it can be acertained no license was hurt during their production) package them as htmldoc sub-packages (one per font family). Assuming upstream was smart enough to use its own font names and didn't re-use the name of someone else's font (in which case the fonts need to be rename or they'll conflict with the real fonts). The subpackage logic can be taken from /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:22:12 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:22:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477406] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212122.mBLLMCfZ002545@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477406 Rex Dieter changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter 2008-12-21 16:22:11 EDT --- $ rpm -ql kdeedu | grep ttf /usr/share/kde4/apps/blinken/fonts/steve.ttf /usr/share/kde4/apps/khangman/fonts/Domestic_Manners.ttf /usr/share/kde4/apps/khangman/fonts/Dustismo_Roman.ttf Per Kevin's investigation, looks like these use sjfonts, dustismo-fonts, respectively, per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Steve_Hand_fonts https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dustimo_fonts other links: http://www.dustismo.com/ (down?) http://ospublish.constantvzw.org -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:26:28 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:26:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477407] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212126.mBLLQSIT017394@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477407 Rex Dieter changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter 2008-12-21 16:26:27 EDT --- $ rpm -ql kdelibs | grep ttf /usr/share/kde4/apps/formulashape/fonts/Arev.ttf /usr/share/kde4/apps/formulashape/fonts/ArevBI.ttf /usr/share/kde4/apps/formulashape/fonts/ArevBd.ttf /usr/share/kde4/apps/formulashape/fonts/ArevIt.ttf /usr/share/kde4/apps/formulashape/fonts/cmex10.ttf These look like http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Bitstream_Vera_derivatives#Arev_Fonts - The standard characters from Arev have been merged into DejaVu, but there are mathematical characters in the Private Use Area. And cmex10 is from tex and/or mathml-fonts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:27:12 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:27:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477406] kdeedu: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212127.mBLLRCHs003270@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477406 Rex Dieter changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Please convert to new font |kdeedu: Please convert to |packaging guidelines |new font packaging | |guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:26:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:26:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477407] kdelibs: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212126.mBLLQr0V003230@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477407 Rex Dieter changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Please convert to new font |kdelibs: Please convert to |packaging guidelines |new font packaging | |guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:27:25 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:27:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477423] mathml-fonts: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212127.mBLLRPqF003299@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477423 Rex Dieter changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Please convert to new font |mathml-fonts: Please |packaging guidelines |convert to new font | |packaging guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:27:56 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:27:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477409] koffice: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212127.mBLLRuQA003332@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477409 Rex Dieter changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Summary|Please convert to new font |koffice: Please convert to |packaging guidelines |new font packaging | |guidelines -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:28:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:28:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477423] mathml-fonts: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212128.mBLLS6pC017507@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477423 Rex Dieter changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:43:59 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:43:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212143.mBLLhx11020747@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476720 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 16:43:59 EDT --- [This is a simplified version of the message sent to every package maintainer that ships TTF/OTF/Type1 fonts in Fedora.] Our font packaging guidelines have now changed. New font package submissions must now be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21) has been submitted for FPC and FESCO approval today. The new templates should make the creation of font packages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager in fedora-devel and can serve as examples: ? abyssinica-fonts ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? nafees-web-naskh-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts The new spec templates have been designed to be easy to update to from the previous guidelines, and to remove complexity from font packages. To help new package creation the fontpackages-devel package has been made available in Fedora 9 and 10. If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:43:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:43:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 457955] Review Request: bonvenocf-fonts - BonvenoCF font In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212143.mBLLho6W020565@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457955 --- Comment #13 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 16:43:48 EDT --- [This is a simplified version of the message sent to every package maintainer that ships TTF/OTF/Type1 fonts in Fedora.] Our font packaging guidelines have now changed. New font package submissions must now be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21) has been submitted for FPC and FESCO approval today. The new templates should make the creation of font packages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager in fedora-devel and can serve as examples: ? abyssinica-fonts ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? nafees-web-naskh-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts The new spec templates have been designed to be easy to update to from the previous guidelines, and to remove complexity from font packages. To help new package creation the fontpackages-devel package has been made available in Fedora 9 and 10. If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:43:52 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:43:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 461139] Review Request: arabeyes-thabit-fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212143.mBLLhqvC020609@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139 --- Comment #34 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 16:43:51 EDT --- [This is a simplified version of the message sent to every package maintainer that ships TTF/OTF/Type1 fonts in Fedora.] Our font packaging guidelines have now changed. New font package submissions must now be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21) has been submitted for FPC and FESCO approval today. The new templates should make the creation of font packages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager in fedora-devel and can serve as examples: ? abyssinica-fonts ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? nafees-web-naskh-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts The new spec templates have been designed to be easy to update to from the previous guidelines, and to remove complexity from font packages. To help new package creation the fontpackages-devel package has been made available in Fedora 9 and 10. If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:43:47 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:43:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 457709] Review Request: perizia-fonts - English asymmetric font In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212143.mBLLhl4X020536@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709 --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 16:43:46 EDT --- [This is a simplified version of the message sent to every package maintainer that ships TTF/OTF/Type1 fonts in Fedora.] Our font packaging guidelines have now changed. New font package submissions must now be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21) has been submitted for FPC and FESCO approval today. The new templates should make the creation of font packages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager in fedora-devel and can serve as examples: ? abyssinica-fonts ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? nafees-web-naskh-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts The new spec templates have been designed to be easy to update to from the previous guidelines, and to remove complexity from font packages. To help new package creation the fontpackages-devel package has been made available in Fedora 9 and 10. If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:43:56 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:43:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 466193] Review Request: alee-fonts - Korean TrueType Fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212143.mBLLhu5h020683@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466193 --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 16:43:55 EDT --- [This is a simplified version of the message sent to every package maintainer that ships TTF/OTF/Type1 fonts in Fedora.] Our font packaging guidelines have now changed. New font package submissions must now be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21) has been submitted for FPC and FESCO approval today. The new templates should make the creation of font packages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager in fedora-devel and can serve as examples: ? abyssinica-fonts ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? nafees-web-naskh-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts The new spec templates have been designed to be easy to update to from the previous guidelines, and to remove complexity from font packages. To help new package creation the fontpackages-devel package has been made available in Fedora 9 and 10. If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:43:54 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:43:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 462711] Review Request: Mothanna-fonts - Mothanna-fonts from Arabeyes.org In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212143.mBLLhsi9020650@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462711 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 16:43:53 EDT --- [This is a simplified version of the message sent to every package maintainer that ships TTF/OTF/Type1 fonts in Fedora.] Our font packaging guidelines have now changed. New font package submissions must now be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21) has been submitted for FPC and FESCO approval today. The new templates should make the creation of font packages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager in fedora-devel and can serve as examples: ? abyssinica-fonts ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? nafees-web-naskh-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts The new spec templates have been designed to be easy to update to from the previous guidelines, and to remove complexity from font packages. To help new package creation the fontpackages-devel package has been made available in Fedora 9 and 10. If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:43:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:43:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 456527] Review Request: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212143.mBLLhk7a020503@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527 --- Comment #14 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 16:43:44 EDT --- [This is a simplified version of the message sent to every package maintainer that ships TTF/OTF/Type1 fonts in Fedora.] Our font packaging guidelines have now changed. New font package submissions must now be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21) has been submitted for FPC and FESCO approval today. The new templates should make the creation of font packages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager in fedora-devel and can serve as examples: ? abyssinica-fonts ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? nafees-web-naskh-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts The new spec templates have been designed to be easy to update to from the previous guidelines, and to remove complexity from font packages. To help new package creation the fontpackages-devel package has been made available in Fedora 9 and 10. If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:43:57 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:43:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 467507] Review Request: Rufscript-fonts - Rufscripts is a decorative handwriting based font In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212143.mBLLhvMU020723@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467507 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 16:43:57 EDT --- [This is a simplified version of the message sent to every package maintainer that ships TTF/OTF/Type1 fonts in Fedora.] Our font packaging guidelines have now changed. New font package submissions must now be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21) has been submitted for FPC and FESCO approval today. The new templates should make the creation of font packages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager in fedora-devel and can serve as examples: ? abyssinica-fonts ? andika-fonts ? apanov-heuristica-fonts ? bitstream-vera-fonts ? charis-fonts ? dejavu-fonts ? ecolier-court-fonts ? edrip-fonts ? gfs-ambrosia-fonts ? gfs-artemisia-fonts ? gfs-baskerville-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ? gfs-bodoni-fonts ? gfs-complutum-fonts ? gfs-didot-classic-fonts ? gfs-didot-fonts ? gfs-eustace-fonts ? gfs-fleischman-fonts ? gfs-garaldus-fonts ? gfs-gazis-fonts ? gfs-jackson-fonts ? gfs-neohellenic-fonts ? gfs-nicefore-fonts ? gfs-olga-fonts ? gfs-porson-fonts ? gfs-solomos-fonts ? gfs-theokritos-fonts ? nafees-web-naskh-fonts ? stix-fonts ? yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts The new spec templates have been designed to be easy to update to from the previous guidelines, and to remove complexity from font packages. To help new package creation the fontpackages-devel package has been made available in Fedora 9 and 10. If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:57:18 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:57:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477407] kdelibs: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212157.mBLLvIBI022859@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477407 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 16:57:17 EDT --- 1. If DejaVu is not good enough for kde, please submit an Arev font package and then depend on it 2. Likewise we have a ton of math fonts in the distro (asana, stix?) but if those are not good enough please submit a font package for cmex10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:53:57 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:53:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477551] New: RFE Add fontconfig file checking Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: RFE Add fontconfig file checking https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477551 Summary: RFE Add fontconfig file checking Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: rpmlint AssignedTo: ville.skytta at iki.fi ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro, tmz at pobox.com, ville.skytta at iki.fi, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora As suggested by Jens Petersen the package review tools such as rpm should be enhanced to check fontconfig files provided by packagers are well-formed. This check could take two forms: 1. check that all the files in %_fontconfig_templatedir are well-formed-XML 2. check that they conform to the current fontconfig DTD (this test probably requires for the fontconfig packager to register it in the system XML catalogs but Behdad is working on a new release right now so that's a good time to ask) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 21:59:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 16:59:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477406] kdeedu: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212159.mBLLxcC0023033@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477406 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 16:59:38 EDT --- Those are all in the Fedora wishlist. Clean packages would be appreciated (and would made the fonts available to all the fontconfig apps) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 23:28:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:28:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477384] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212328.mBLNSEqI003730@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477384 Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NOTABUG |RAWHIDE --- Comment #4 from Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams 2008-12-21 18:28:13 EDT --- Alright, I tore out the private font since its license is unsuitable for Fedora, and made feh use DejaVu Sans instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 23:39:31 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:39:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 457947] Review Request: oldstandard-sfd-fonts - Old Standard Fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212339.mBLNdVOI023099@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947 --- Comment #23 from Martin-Gomez Pablo 2008-12-21 18:39:29 EDT --- I have some problems with a /home partition corrupted currently. I will try to review this this week. It seems that we are near to the end of the review :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 21 23:53:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 18:53:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477371] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812212353.mBLNrhU3009969@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477371 --- Comment #2 from Victor Bogado 2008-12-21 18:53:42 EDT --- I have several problems to create a package for this font. - This font is not complete, it only has the main characters. - The font has been altered for the game, for it didn't even had numbers. - The upstream site does not have a download link, in fact the site is in flash and I cannot even put a link to the font page. The only solution I can see for this is the following, create a sub package for the game that packages only the font. So the upstream becomes the altered font for the game. My opinion is that the incomplete font is not very useful for much else then the game, that's why I packaged it with the game ignoring the "avoid bundling font..." rule. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.gnome.org Mon Dec 22 00:39:38 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at bugzilla.gnome.org (gnome-control-center (bugzilla.gnome.org)) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:39:38 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Bug 378338] Deal with X servers which misreport the screen's dimensions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081222003938.C32BB23F526@label.gnome.org> If you have any questions why you received this email, please see the text at the end of this email. Replies to this email are NOT read, please see the text at the end of this email. You can add comments to this bug at: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=378338 gnome-control-center | settings-daemon | Ver: trunk Ryan Hayle changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hackel at walkingfish.com ------- Comment #50 from Ryan Hayle 2008-12-22 00:39 UTC ------- What is the status of this bug? It is marked fixed, and hasn't had any activity in over a year, yet GNOME 2.24.1 (at least in Ubuntu 8.10) still seems to default to 96 DPI regardless of my physical screen DPI. Is this Ubuntu-specific? I would very much like to see this bug resolved, as currently only one of my 4 displays runs at 96 DPI. My laptop is at 147 dpi, and my netbook is 134. I agree with all the arguments made by Nicolas Mailhot above, and hope this will get fixed soon! -- See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=email.html for more info about why you received this email, why you can't respond via email, how to stop receiving emails (or reduce the number you receive), and how to contact someone if you are having problems with the system. You can add comments to this bug at http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=378338. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 02:10:15 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:10:15 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477397] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812220210.mBM2AFmr013770@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477397 --- Comment #8 from Adam Goode 2008-12-21 21:10:14 EDT --- Any day now I am expecting twins to arrive, so I don't think I will have enough time to properly address this issue. Anyone who would like to fix this problem if very welcome to co-maintain! :) Besides this issue, the package is basically stable and low-maintenance. It comes from the same upstream as CUPS. (Not sure if that's changed since the Apple deal.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 03:59:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 22:59:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 462038] Hotkeys has no response and "Go To" window couldn't be inputted. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812220359.mBM3xomI029247@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462038 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(cchance at redhat.co | |m) --- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen 2008-12-21 22:59:48 EDT --- Can you test the latest build in rahide when you have time, Caius? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 06:33:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:33:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 462038] Hotkeys has no response and "Go To" window couldn't be inputted. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812220633.mBM6XhSD002715@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462038 Caius CHANCE changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(cchance at redhat.co | |m) | --- Comment #11 from Caius CHANCE 2008-12-22 01:33:42 EDT --- It worked on my rawhide (F10 + yum update to rawhide), on 22 Dec 2008. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 06:54:02 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:54:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477458] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812220654.mBM6s2G1022848@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477458 Pravin Satpute changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 06:52:41 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 01:52:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477451] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812220652.mBM6qfqt022776@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477451 Pravin Satpute changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 07:58:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:58:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477407] kdelibs: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812220758.mBM7wcfj032333@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477407 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler 2008-12-22 02:58:37 EDT --- There's already the mathml-fonts package which has cmex10. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 07:59:28 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:59:28 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477406] kdeedu: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812220759.mBM7xS4g032409@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477406 --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler 2008-12-22 02:59:27 EDT --- +1, understood and agreed. I wasn't aware of these being bundled at all before your audit. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 08:19:27 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 03:19:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477371] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812220819.mBM8JRd3003574@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477371 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-22 03:19:26 EDT --- you never know when a font is going to be of use to someone else; with the new templates creating a subpackage should be easy so yes, do that. You'll still need to carefully review the font license, anyway -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Mon Dec 22 08:51:54 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 00:51:54 -0800 Subject: [Bug 70132] Support @font-face In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812220851.mBM8psHq021798@mrapp52.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70132 Bug 70132 depends on bug 458160, which changed state. Bug 458160 Summary: [PATCH] Can't use .otf fonts via @font-face on Windows https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458160 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 11:51:17 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:51:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477606] New: RFE: warn on fonts installed outside %_fontbasedir Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: RFE: warn on fonts installed outside %_fontbasedir https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477606 Summary: RFE: warn on fonts installed outside %_fontbasedir Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: rpmlint AssignedTo: ville.skytta at iki.fi ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro, tmz at pobox.com, ville.skytta at iki.fi, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora Our current font packaging policy requires the installation of TTF/OTF/PFA/PFB fonts in a subdirectory of %_fontbasedir http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages Our general packaging policy demands of packagers to create proper font packages when their app bundles them http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages If an app or bit of code is not fontconfig-aware, it can always package symlinks pointing to fonts packaged according to our guidelines in %_fontbasedir space, and depend on the font package providing those files. A recent audit run revealed that the number of packages bundling fonts is very high. (repoquery found 159 packages shipping fonts in rawhide, the 2/3rds not being font packages, see bug #477044) In many case their packagers were not even aware they were bundling fonts (bug #477406#c4). Some of them are licensing problems (477384#c4) To prevent such problems in the future, rpmlint should flag any package that installs ttf/otf/pfa/pfb fonts outside the %_fontbasedir tree, or bundle those files with binaries in /usr/bin, /usr/lib?? and such. Packages that include symlinks to files in the %_fontbasedir tree are ok, though they should also get a warning so upstream adds fontconfig support to its code (since it has near universal adoption and continuing to ignore fontconfig will only add to the packager problems in the long run) http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.freedesktop.xorg/34322/focus=34335 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 12:02:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:02:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477607] New: mkfontscale produces syscalls with EINVAL Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: mkfontscale produces syscalls with EINVAL https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477607 Summary: mkfontscale produces syscalls with EINVAL Product: Fedora Version: 9 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: freetype AssignedTo: besfahbo at redhat.com ReportedBy: sgrubb at redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: besfahbo at redhat.com, kevin at tigcc.ticalc.org, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora Created an attachment (id=327635) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=327635) patch fixing problems described herein Description of problem: The mkfontscale program uses the freetype library. Our IDS work shows that the freetype library causes mmap syscalls with EINVAL return codes. This is because its not checking the length of the file before calling mmap. If the file is opened readonly and the length is 0, the kernel does not like it. How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. add to audit rules: -a always,exit -S mmap -F exit=-ENIVAL -k einval 2. reboot system 3. ausearch --start recent -k einval -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From nim at fedoraproject.org Mon Dec 22 12:32:00 2008 From: nim at fedoraproject.org (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:32:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/fontpackages/devel .cvsignore, 1.3, 1.4 fontpackages.spec, 1.3, 1.4 import.log, 1.3, 1.4 sources, 1.3, 1.4 Message-ID: <20081222123200.D62C070130@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv2993/devel Modified Files: .cvsignore fontpackages.spec import.log sources Log Message: 1.13 Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- .cvsignore 19 Dec 2008 22:38:08 -0000 1.3 +++ .cvsignore 22 Dec 2008 12:31:30 -0000 1.4 @@ -1 +1 @@ -fontpackages-1.12.tar.bz2 +fontpackages-1.13.tar.bz2 Index: fontpackages.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel/fontpackages.spec,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- fontpackages.spec 21 Dec 2008 12:37:56 -0000 1.3 +++ fontpackages.spec 22 Dec 2008 12:31:30 -0000 1.4 @@ -1,9 +1,10 @@ %define spectemplatedir %{_sysconfdir}/rpmdevtools/ +%define ftcgtemplatedir %{_datadir}/fontconfig/templates/ %define rpmmacrodir %{_sysconfdir}/rpm/ Name: fontpackages -Version: 1.12 -Release: 2%{?dist} +Version: 1.13 +Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages Group: Development/System @@ -63,9 +64,11 @@ %{buildroot}${_fontconfig_confdir} \ %{buildroot}${_fontconfig_templatedir} \ %{buildroot}%{spectemplatedir} \ - %{buildroot}%{rpmmacrodir} -install -m 0644 -p spec-templates/*.spec %{buildroot}%{spectemplatedir} -install -m 0644 -p macros/macros* %{buildroot}%{rpmmacrodir} + %{buildroot}%{rpmmacrodir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/fontconfig/templates +install -m 0644 -p spec-templates/*.spec %{buildroot}%{spectemplatedir} +install -m 0644 -p fontconfig-templates/* %{buildroot}%{ftcgtemplatedir} +install -m 0644 -p macros/macros* %{buildroot}%{rpmmacrodir} cat < %{name}-%{version}.files %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) @@ -80,16 +83,24 @@ %files filesystem -f %{name}-%{version}.files +%defattr(0644,root,root,0755) +%dir %{_datadir}/fontconfig %files devel %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) -%doc license.txt readme.txt fontconfig-templates/ +%doc license.txt readme.txt %config(noreplace) %{spectemplatedir}/*.spec %config(noreplace) %{rpmmacrodir}/macros* +%dir %{ftcgtemplatedir} +%{ftcgtemplatedir}/* %changelog +* Mon Dec 22 2008 Nicolas Mailhot +- 1.13-1 +??? Add another directory to avoid depending on unowned stuff +??? use it to put the fontconfig examples in a better place * Sun Dec 21 2008 Nicolas Mailhot - 1.12-2 ??? Change homepage Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- import.log 21 Dec 2008 12:37:56 -0000 1.3 +++ import.log 22 Dec 2008 12:31:30 -0000 1.4 @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ fontpackages-1_11-1_fc11:HEAD:fontpackages-1.11-1.fc11.src.rpm:1229379496 fontpackages-1_12-1_fc11:HEAD:fontpackages-1.12-1.fc11.src.rpm:1229726060 fontpackages-1_12-2_fc11:HEAD:fontpackages-1.12-2.fc11.src.rpm:1229863050 +fontpackages-1_13-1_fc11:HEAD:fontpackages-1.13-1.fc11.src.rpm:1229949018 Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/fontpackages/devel/sources,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- sources 19 Dec 2008 22:38:08 -0000 1.3 +++ sources 22 Dec 2008 12:31:30 -0000 1.4 @@ -1 +1 @@ -f0668a3a60d21ec16ecf89c8c192d899 fontpackages-1.12.tar.bz2 +8d7eb82ee9fafc3f0826da58b9bb537f fontpackages-1.13.tar.bz2 From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 12:31:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:31:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221231.mBMCVhIK027687@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-22 07:31:42 EDT --- fontpackages-1.13 has been released an pushed rawhide-side with the requested indenting changes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 13:01:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:01:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477407] kdelibs: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221301.mBMD1hqV000592@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477407 Ben Laenen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bl.bugs at gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Ben Laenen 2008-12-22 08:01:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > - The standard characters from Arev have been merged into DejaVu, but there are > mathematical characters in the Private Use Area. Which ones? The last new version from Arev was made two years ago, chances are those characters were included in the latest Unicode versions, in which case we from DejaVu would like to know which glyphs are missing in DejaVu for kdelibs (if they weren't added already in the mean time). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 13:19:12 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:19:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476951] missing dependencies of emacs: xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221319.mBMDJCri021950@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476951 Matej Cepl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|xgl-maint at redhat.com |krh at redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Matej Cepl 2008-12-22 08:19:11 EDT --- Oh, dosh -- I see! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 13:54:36 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:54:36 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477551] RFE Add fontconfig file checking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221354.mBMDsaFk028656@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477551 Ville Skytt? changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |UPSTREAM --- Comment #1 from Ville Skytt? 2008-12-22 08:54:35 EDT --- >From rpmlint POV, I think a generic XML well-formedness/validation check would be a better approach than doing this just for fontconfig files. I've filed an upstream RFE about this: http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/168 In the meantime (and even if/when implemented in rpmlint), I suggest font packages could add a %check section and validate their XML files in it - it should be easy for them to do it using xmllint even if the needed DTD is not catalogued (obviously as long as it is available somewhere locally). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 14:06:17 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:06:17 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477606] RFE: warn on fonts installed outside %_fontbasedir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221406.mBME6Hk1013119@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477606 --- Comment #1 from Ville Skytt? 2008-12-22 09:06:17 EDT --- Both the policy and the implementation (%_fontbasedir) sounds quite Fedora specific and thus the checks would probably be non-upstreamable. This is not a blocker for inclusion in Fedora's rpmlint, but requires someone to write and maintain the code. Patches welcome, preferably along with a signup to be a rpmlint co-maintainer to maintain the code. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 14:10:19 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:10:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477551] RFE Add fontconfig file checking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221410.mBMEAJhO032115@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477551 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-22 09:10:19 EDT --- Well, the problem with fontconfig is that its XML files do not use the xml extension, so you'll need to special-case their detection in any case. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 14:23:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:23:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477606] RFE: warn on fonts installed outside %_fontbasedir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221423.mBMENUt2002045@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477606 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-22 09:23:29 EDT --- Even though the macro implementation is currently fedora-specific, it has been split in a self-contained small package with public releases so other distros could pick it up if they liked it. However, the general problem is just helping packagers to adapt to a fontconfig world, and last I've seen all major distros were standardising on fontconfig (inclusing non-linux ones) so I'd be real surprised if any distribution complained of this check (you can replace %{_fontbasedir} with %{_datadir}/fonts for the general upstream implementation if that makes you feel better) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 14:36:04 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:36:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477473] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221436.mBMEa4xi004272@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477473 Tomas Smetana changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 14:35:21 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:35:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477400] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221435.mBMEZLuk004153@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477400 Tomas Smetana changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 14:43:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:43:26 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477551] RFE Add fontconfig file checking In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221443.mBMEhQvo005464@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477551 --- Comment #3 from Ville Skytt? 2008-12-22 09:43:25 EDT --- Maybe ask fontconfig developers if they'd be willing to change the extension (if they're XML, why not *.xml)? Anyway, checking other stuff in rpmlint than just *.xml would certainly be doable. Added some related comments to upstream RFE, please add further comments there. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 15:02:21 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:02:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477606] RFE: warn on fonts installed outside %_fontbasedir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221502.mBMF2LfG009626@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477606 --- Comment #3 from Ville Skytt? 2008-12-22 10:02:20 EDT --- It's not about feeling better, macros that don't exist simply cannot be used - even a fallback of not doing anything if it doesn't exist would IMO be impolite arm-twisting other distros into implementing it and rpmlint is not a place for that as far as I'm concerned. The general trend in upstream rpmlint has been to get rid of any such distro specific things recently. (BTW I wonder why simply %{_datadir}/fonts was not good enough for the fonts SIG and a new macro (== portability issue) had to be invented.) If you'd like this to be implemented in upstream rpmlint rather than the Fedora one, feel free to submit an upstream RFE or let me know and I'll do it, and we can close this issue here. Anyway, if this goes upstream (no matter who submits), please be prepared to take cross distro considerations into account in the request, answer questions and/or present evidence that distros will start adopting something very similar - that way it's much more likely that someone will be interested in implementing it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 15:31:54 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:31:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477606] RFE: warn on fonts installed outside %_fontbasedir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221531.mBMFVsQI015217@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477606 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo? --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-22 10:31:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > (BTW I wonder why > simply %{_datadir}/fonts was not good enough for the fonts SIG and a new macro > (== portability issue) had to be invented.) There was more than a month of public RFC when you could ask such questions (you were one of the handful of people explicitely CC-ed) But to answer this now: 1. this macro is part of a batch of directory macros, 2. some of the other macros are less obvious, or are pointing to locations upstream is changing 3. using macros means a simple package rebuild once upstream has changed 4. using simple macros means less errors packager-side 5. packagers were all re-defining the same macros in their packages anyway (with twists and subtle mistakes) 6. the macros were explicitely not integrated in a Fedora-specific package but put in a small self-contained package that could be installed or adopted by any interested rpm distro 7. none of the other rpm distros have groups dedicated to fonts packaging or they would have been consulted (the debian and ubuntu folks were) 8. and again, this part is bog-standard fontconfig checking suitable for any fontconfig-enabled distro (the other bits in the fontpackages package may be more Fedora-oriented, even though I've tried to aboid Fedora-isms) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 16:03:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 11:03:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 462038] Hotkeys has no response and "Go To" window couldn't be inputted. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221603.mBMG3r5a020419@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462038 --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-22 11:03:52 EDT --- In reply to comment #11. It worked with SCIM? Or without? Or both? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 17:47:54 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:47:54 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477607] mkfontscale produces syscalls with EINVAL In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221747.mBMHlsw7005832@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477607 Behdad Esfahbod changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |UPSTREAM --- Comment #1 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-22 12:47:53 EDT --- Reported upstream: http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?25151 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org Mon Dec 22 18:16:29 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org (bugzilla-daemon at mozilla.org) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:16:29 -0800 Subject: [Bug 70132] Support @font-face In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812221816.mBMIGTT8011810@mrapp52.mozilla.org> Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70132 Bug 70132 depends on bug 458160, which changed state. Bug 458160 Summary: [PATCH] Can't use .otf fonts via @font-face on Windows https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458160 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|FIXED | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 21:08:44 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:08:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812222108.mBML8iCm025254@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477385, which changed state. Bug 477385 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477385 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 21:08:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:08:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477385] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812222108.mBML8hW0025230@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477385 Matthias Saou changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |0.8.0-2 Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Matthias Saou 2008-12-22 16:08:42 EDT --- Good catch. The package includes 3 identical copies of the FreeSansBold font which we ship in the freefont package. I've replaced the copies with symlinks and require the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 22:32:25 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:32:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477481] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812222232.mBMMWPAN024214@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477481 --- Comment #2 from Mathieu Bridon 2008-12-22 17:32:24 EDT --- Hi First of all, I'd like to thank you for this report, I wasn't aware of the fonts issue (one always learn :). This is particularly a good timing as I'm about to submit a new package in Fedora, and it also contains some fonts ^_^ Anyway, back on Waste's Edge. I contacted the developer, and he told me that only two fonts are included: /usr/share/adonthell/games/wastesedge/gfx/window/font/*/font.font /usr/share/adonthell/games/wastesedge/gfx/window/font/avatar.ttf The first one is a bitmap one that was specifically created for the game. Kai (Adonthell / Waste's Edge lead dev) contacted the original author to have precisions about the font license. This one should not be a problem, I'll simply create a subpackage wastesedge-fonts for it. That should do it if I correctly understood the packaging policy on fonts. Could someone confirm ? However, the second one might cause a little more trouble. It is a True Type font that was created by a fan of the Ultima game [1] [2] I tried contacting him, asking for more informations about his font license, but it looks like the email address provided on his website is not valid anymore. I'm not sure what I can do here, any idea ? :-/ [1] http://ultima.gogab.com/ [2] http://ultima.gogab.com/avtrfont.zip -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 22:39:57 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:39:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477414] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812222239.mBMMdvwZ008746@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477414 --- Comment #2 from Jameson 2008-12-22 17:39:56 EDT --- These are symlinks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 22:40:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:40:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812222240.mBMMeE0v009096@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477414, which changed state. Bug 477414 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477414 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 22:40:13 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:40:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477414] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812222240.mBMMeDJR009070@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477414 Jameson changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 22:51:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:51:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477486] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812222251.mBMMphDo011226@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477486 Matej Cepl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|xgl-maint at redhat.com |krh at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 22:51:10 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:51:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477486] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812222251.mBMMpARY011175@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477486 Matej Cepl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 23:04:33 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:04:33 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477481] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812222304.mBMN4XJ0030117@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477481 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |182235 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-22 18:04:32 EDT --- For the first font, a subpackage would be fine, even though you'll not I didn't search for *.font files in repoquery, so those can rot in peace a little longer (but a subpackage is always better than a private font) For the second font it only says "Avatar font by C.J. Ellsworth" so you need to track this person to get a proper license (OFL or GPL+font exception are good) You can also try the http://www.myfonts.com/WhatTheFont/ service to see if it finds you a new contact. The font is in Debian so you can ask Debian-side if they have a current contact. If you can't you have to drop the font in Fedora. Spot may have other suggestions. See also: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 23:33:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:33:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 462038] Hotkeys has no response and "Go To" window couldn't be inputted. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812222333.mBMNX6sc017911@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462038 --- Comment #13 from Caius CHANCE 2008-12-22 18:33:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) Both. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 23:47:23 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:47:23 -0500 Subject: [Bug 462041] Hotkeys has no response and "Go To" window couldn't be inputted. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812222347.mBMNlNXh004541@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462041 Bug 462041 depends on bug 462038, which changed state. Bug 462038 Summary: Hotkeys has no response and "Go To" window couldn't be inputted. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462038 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 22 23:47:21 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 18:47:21 -0500 Subject: [Bug 462038] Hotkeys has no response and "Go To" window couldn't be inputted. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812222347.mBMNlLOQ004505@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462038 Kevin Fenzi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-22 18:47:21 EDT --- Excellent. I am going to go ahead and close this then... Feel free to reopen if it happens again or file a new bug. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 23 14:03:01 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:03:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477371] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812231403.mBNE31I6023778@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477371 --- Comment #4 from Victor Bogado 2008-12-23 09:03:00 EDT --- The license is "CC by attribution", I will do this as soon as possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 23 14:20:04 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:20:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477371] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812231420.mBNEK4nq027091@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477371 --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-23 09:20:03 EDT --- This license is in the approved list so it should not pose a problem. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 23 15:03:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:03:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812231503.mBNF3KS7002320@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477440, which changed state. Bug 477440 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477440 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 23 15:03:19 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:03:19 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477440] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812231503.mBNF3Jl9002295@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477440 Alexander Kahl changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kahl 2008-12-23 10:03:17 EDT --- Files in question: $ rpm -qa php-ZendFramework\*|xargs -n1 rpm -ql|grep -E '\.(ttf|otf|pfb|pfa)$' /usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/Vera.ttf /usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraBI.ttf /usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraBd.ttf /usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraIt.ttf /usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraMoBI.ttf /usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraMoBd.ttf /usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraMoIt.ttf /usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraMono.ttf /usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraSe.ttf /usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraSeBd.ttf (from php-ZendFramework-tests) These font files are part of Zend Framework's tests package and used to determine whether the PDF extension works correctly. They are identical to the ones in Fedora's bitstream-vera-fonts package, thus there are no licensing issues: /usr/share/fonts/bitstream-vera $ sha1sum *.ttf > /tmp/sha /usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts $ sha1sum -c /tmp/sha VeraBd.ttf: OK VeraBI.ttf: OK VeraIt.ttf: OK VeraMoBd.ttf: OK VeraMoBI.ttf: OK VeraMoIt.ttf: OK VeraMono.ttf: OK VeraSeBd.ttf: OK VeraSe.ttf: OK Vera.ttf: OK If you still consider this a bug, we can either patch the source code (heavily discouraged) or symlink the files from bitstream-vera-fonts and create a dependency on the package; in either case, please reopen this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 23 15:57:02 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:57:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812231557.mBNFv2L0026753@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477440, which changed state. Bug 477440 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477440 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 23 15:57:01 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:57:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477440] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812231557.mBNFv1El026729@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477440 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-23 10:57:00 EDT --- Please symlink from the Vera (or better) DejaVu packages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 23 17:28:56 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:28:56 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477606] RFE: warn on fonts installed outside %_fontbasedir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812231728.mBNHSu6H010053@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477606 Ville Skytt? changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #5 from Ville Skytt? 2008-12-23 12:28:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > There was more than a month of public RFC when you could ask such questions > (you were one of the handful of people explicitely CC-ed) In the mails that reached my inbox of that thread, I count total of 3 people who provided *any* opinions of the proposal: one voiced "doubt about the usefulness of this", and two others concurred "this sounds like severe overkill". The brief look I had into the proposal made me firmly agree with those opinions and I was pleased I did not have to dig more deeply into the proposal as several others were already raising the same concerns, and lost interest in the rest of the discussion after that, being (in retrospect, apparently mistakenly) assured that the existing opposition would result in it being cleaned up. For some reason the proposal was pushed through nevertheless, and now that you're asking people to spend their time adding support for it (without providing code/patches, not only here but in a couple of other bug reports as well), you seem annoyed at me just because I'm pointing out the issues you may run into down that road. That makes implementing it an even less interesting thing for me personally to consider spending my time on. Good luck finding others to do it. Anyway, you did not answer my question in comment 3 but placed a needinfo flag along with comment 4 - what is the info you're looking for, and from whom? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 23 18:17:57 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:17:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812231817.mBNIHvws002609@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055 --- Comment #4 from Ville Skytt? 2008-12-23 13:17:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > There are two templates because reviews show there are two different use cases > and they really are different patterns that do not fit in a single template I understand that. In comment 1 (the Suggestion: part to point 1) I outlined how rpmdevtools could adapt to that and do the right thing. Could you comment on that? This is really the crucial point - if it can't be sanely done, the rest of the points are pretty much moot as in that case there's not much at all rpmdevtools can do with the new font templates. > > 2) Also, seems that what rpmdev-newspec would replace in the templates > > contained in fontpackages would no longer be the right thing; at least > > FONTNAME has changed to > > I've tried to keep things consistent and put stuff to be replaced in brackets > yes. If there is some other convention that would make it easier for you, > please say so. All that matters is that rpmdev-newspec knows what to look for, and what it is looking for is a placeholder that can be assumed to be robustly sed-replaceable, and that it does not change between spec template revisions. Please just confirm what it'll be (see Suggestion for point 2 in comment 1). > The rpm devs have announced they'll be internalising buildroot creation so > anything that tries to manipulate it from scripts is doomed mid-term anyway. > And %{buildroot} is both valid and more consistent with the rest of the > template This has nothing to do with what sets the value of buildroot or how, and nothing to do with modifying it. This is purely a stylistic issue which people have very strong opinions on: some people prefer to write specfiles using shell style variables, others rpm macro style. For example whether one wants to write "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" or "rm -rf %{buildroot}" in specfiles. We have support for honoring the user's preference in place in newspec if the templates are written using the shell style variable syntax - by writing them in macro style that preference is taken away (or additional code would need be added that does it the other way around, but I'm not sure if it can be robustly done). Again, see Suggestion for point 3 in comment 1 for more details how this works currently. > For the rest if it's too much of a problem to you I can put > the templates somewhere else in the filesystem. If we can't get rpmdevtools to do anything useful with the templates from fontpackages, it makes no sense to put them in rpmdevtools' dir structure, that'd just add confusion. But I don't think there's a reason to go there - all it takes to support regressionless transition to the new font spec templates from rpmdevtools POV is outlined in questions in this comment (and comment 1) above. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 23 18:46:43 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:46:43 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812231846.mBNIkhhJ023685@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055 --- Comment #5 from Ville Skytt? 2008-12-23 13:46:42 EDT --- To summarize, in a nutshell, what I could work from is if I get: a) Confirmation that there are two font spec templates, /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-{multi,single}.spec, and this is how it's going to stay in the foreseeable future. b) Confirmation that the token in both of the above to be replaced with the font "basename" is exactly "" (sans quotes), and this is how it's going to stay in the foreseeable future. Please provide answers to these ASAP, we're starting to be a bit in a hurry to get the next rpmdevtools out. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 23 21:58:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:58:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 471538] FontForge Abort Opening some .otf files In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812232158.mBNLwowO030278@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=471538 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi 2008-12-23 16:58:45 EDT --- ok. Upstream has identified and fixed this (at least it works for me now) Can you try the scratch build at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1019271 and confirm it now works for you? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 23 23:13:00 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:13:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477435] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812232313.mBNND0tI012041@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477435 Caolan McNamara changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from Caolan McNamara 2008-12-23 18:12:59 EDT --- Lets give this a go, rough testing shows that our fontconfig support doesn't do anything like filter it out (under any assumption that it couldn't possibly exist outside of the current location) so whack it into the normal font area. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 24 06:14:39 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:14:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812240614.mBO6Edcs018627@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477432, which changed state. Bug 477432 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477432 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 24 06:14:39 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 01:14:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477432] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812240614.mBO6EdsJ018603@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477432 Wart changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Wart 2008-12-24 01:14:38 EDT --- The single font file in the package has been replaced with a symlink to the font file and a dependency on the font package was added. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From tagoh at fedoraproject.org Wed Dec 24 12:31:43 2008 From: tagoh at fedoraproject.org (Akira TAGOH) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:31:43 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/hanazono-fonts/devel hanazono-fonts.spec,1.1,1.2 Message-ID: <20081224123143.710FA70107@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: tagoh Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/hanazono-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv29102 Modified Files: hanazono-fonts.spec Log Message: * Wed Dec 24 2008 Akira TAGOH - 20081012-6 - Update the spec file to fit into new guideline. (#477395) Index: hanazono-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/hanazono-fonts/devel/hanazono-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- hanazono-fonts.spec 17 Nov 2008 02:23:06 -0000 1.1 +++ hanazono-fonts.spec 24 Dec 2008 12:31:13 -0000 1.2 @@ -1,12 +1,11 @@ %define fontname hanazono -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d %define archivename %{fontname}-%{version} %define priority 66 +%define fontconf %{priority}-%{fontname}.conf Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 20081012 -Release: 5%{?dist} +Release: 6%{?dist} Summary: Japanese Mincho-typeface TrueType font Group: User Interface/X @@ -17,6 +16,8 @@ BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BuildArch: noarch +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description Hanazono Mincho typeface is a Japanese TrueType font that developed with @@ -44,36 +45,28 @@ %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -install -dm 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontdir} -install -pm 0644 hanazono.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontdir} -install -dm 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontconfdir} -install -pm 0644 %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontconfdir}/%{priority}-%{fontname}.conf +install -dm 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontdir} +install -pm 0644 hanazono.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontdir} +install -dm 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontconfig_confdir} +install -pm 0644 %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} +ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf} %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi - -%postun -if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{fontdir} || : -fi +%_font_pkg -f %{fontconf} hanazono.ttf - -%files -%defattr(0644, root, root, 0755) %doc LISENCE.txt README.txt THANKS.txt -%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/%{priority}-%{fontname}.conf -%dir %{fontdir}/ -%{fontdir}/*.ttf +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Wed Dec 24 2008 Akira TAGOH - 20081012-6 +- Update the spec file to fit into new guideline. (#477395) + * Fri Nov 14 2008 Akira TAGOH - 20081012-5 - Fix a typo in fontconfig config again. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 24 12:36:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 07:36:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477395] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812241236.mBOCaZei003093@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477395 Akira TAGOH changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Akira TAGOH 2008-12-24 07:36:34 EDT --- should be fixed in hanazono-fonts-20081012-6.fc11. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 24 18:41:58 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:41:58 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474045] new upstream version 4.28; use cyrillic non-script characters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812241841.mBOIfw5C002167@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474045 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-24 13:41:57 EDT --- terminus-font-4.28-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 24 18:42:51 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:42:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474045] new upstream version 4.28; use cyrillic non-script characters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812241842.mBOIgpMl002403@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474045 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-24 13:42:51 EDT --- terminus-font-4.28-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 24 18:42:00 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:42:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 474045] new upstream version 4.28; use cyrillic non-script characters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812241842.mBOIg0Lu002194@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474045 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 24 22:56:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:56:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812242256.mBOMuKYA006568@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477381, which changed state. Bug 477381 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477381 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 24 22:56:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:56:20 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477381] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812242256.mBOMuKAq006544@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477381 Wart changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Wart 2008-12-24 17:56:18 EDT --- Fonts in the package have been replaced with symlinks to system fonts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 24 23:41:11 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:41:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812242341.mBONfB22012876@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477484, which changed state. Bug 477484 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477484 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 24 23:41:10 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 18:41:10 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477484] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812242341.mBONfAKq012850@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477484 Wart changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Wart 2008-12-24 18:41:09 EDT --- I replaced the font that comes with the package with a link to the appropriate system font. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From tagoh at fedoraproject.org Thu Dec 25 05:59:47 2008 From: tagoh at fedoraproject.org (Akira TAGOH) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 05:59:47 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/sazanami-fonts/devel sazanami-gothic-fontconfig.conf, NONE, 1.1 sazanami-mincho-fontconfig.conf, NONE, 1.1 sazanami-fonts.spec, 1.3, 1.4 Message-ID: <20081225055947.8B98170105@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: tagoh Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/sazanami-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv2826 Modified Files: sazanami-fonts.spec Added Files: sazanami-gothic-fontconfig.conf sazanami-mincho-fontconfig.conf Log Message: * Thu Dec 25 2008 Akira TAGOH - 0.20040629-5.20061016 - Update the spec file to fit into new guideline. (#477453) --- NEW FILE sazanami-gothic-fontconfig.conf --- ja-jp sans-serif Sazanami Gothic Sazanami Gothic sans-serif --- NEW FILE sazanami-mincho-fontconfig.conf --- ja-jp serif Sazanami Mincho Sazanami Mincho serif Index: sazanami-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/sazanami-fonts/devel/sazanami-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.3 retrieving revision 1.4 diff -u -r1.3 -r1.4 --- sazanami-fonts.spec 28 Aug 2007 06:20:56 -0000 1.3 +++ sazanami-fonts.spec 25 Dec 2008 05:59:47 -0000 1.4 @@ -1,15 +1,21 @@ -%define gothfontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{name}-gothic -%define minfontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{name}-mincho -%define catalogue %{_sysconfdir}/X11/fontpath.d %define fontver 20061016 +%define priority 66 +%define fontname sazanami +%define archivename %{fontname}-%{fontver} +%define fontconf %{priority}-%{fontname} +%define catalogue %{_sysconfdir}/X11/fontpath.d +%define common_desc \ +The Sazanami type faces are automatically generated from Wadalab font kit.\ +They also contains some embedded Japanese bitmap fonts. -Name: sazanami-fonts +Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 0.20040629 -Release: 4.%{fontver}%{?dist} +Release: 5.%{fontver}%{?dist} BuildArch: noarch BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BuildRequires: ttmkfdir >= 3.0.6 BuildRequires: mkfontdir +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel URL: http://efont.sourceforge.jp/ # original is http://prdownloads.sourceforge.jp/efont/10087/sazanami-20040629.tar.bz2 @@ -17,6 +23,8 @@ Source0: sazanami-%{fontver}.tar.bz2 Source1: fonts.alias.sazanami-gothic Source2: fonts.alias.sazanami-mincho +Source3: %{fontname}-gothic-fontconfig.conf +Source4: %{fontname}-mincho-fontconfig.conf Summary: Sazanami Japanese TrueType fonts @@ -24,36 +32,45 @@ Group: User Interface/X %description -The Sazanami type faces are automatically generated from Wadalab font kit. -They also contains some embedded Japanese bitmap fonts. +%common_desc + +%package common +Summary: Common files for Sazanami Japanese TrueType fonts +Group: User Interface/X +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem + +%description common +%common_desc + +This package consists of files used by other %{name} packages. -%package gothic +%package gothic Summary: Sazanami Gothic Japanese TrueType font License: BSD Group: User Interface/X Conflicts: fonts-japanese <= 0.20061016-9.fc8 Provides: ttfonts-ja = 1.2-37 Obsoletes: ttfonts-ja < 1.2-37 +Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} -%description gothic -This package contains Japanese TrueType font for Gothic type face. +%description gothic +%common_desc -The Sazanami type faces are automatically generated from Wadalab font kit. -They also contains some embedded Japanese bitmap fonts. +This package contains Japanese TrueType font for Gothic type face. -%package mincho +%package mincho Summary: Sazanami Mincho Japanese TrueType font License: BSD Group: User Interface/X Conflicts: fonts-japanese <= 0.20061016-9.fc8 Provides: ttfonts-ja = 1.2-37 Obsoletes: ttfonts-ja < 1.2-37 +Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} -%description mincho -This package contains Japanese TrueType font for Mincho type face. +%description mincho +%common_desc -The Sazanami type faces are automatically generated from Wadalab font kit. -They also contains some embedded Japanese bitmap fonts. +This package contains Japanese TrueType font for Mincho type face. %prep %setup -q -n sazanami-%{fontver} @@ -63,74 +80,62 @@ %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{gothfontdir} -install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{minfontdir} -install -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{catalogue} - -install -p -m 0644 sazanami-gothic.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{gothfontdir}/ -install -p -m 0644 sazanami-mincho.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{minfontdir}/ -install -m 0644 %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{gothfontdir}/fonts.alias -install -m 0644 %{SOURCE2} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{minfontdir}/fonts.alias +install -dm 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontdir}/{gothic,mincho} +install -pm 0644 sazanami-gothic.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontdir}/gothic +install -pm 0644 sazanami-mincho.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontdir}/mincho + +install -dm 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontconfig_confdir} +install -pm 0644 %{SOURCE3} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}-gothic.conf +install -pm 0644 %{SOURCE4} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}-mincho.conf + +for fontconf in %{fontconf}-gothic.conf %{fontconf}-mincho.conf; do + ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/$fontconf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontconfig_confdir}/$fontconf +done + +install -dm 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{catalogue} +install -pm 0644 %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontdir}/gothic/fonts.alias +install -pm 0644 %{SOURCE2} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontdir}/mincho/fonts.alias # Create fonts.scale and fonts.dir -%{_bindir}/ttmkfdir -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{gothfontdir} -o $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{gothfontdir}/fonts.scale -%{_bindir}/mkfontdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{gothfontdir} -%{_bindir}/ttmkfdir -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{minfontdir} -o $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{minfontdir}/fonts.scale -%{_bindir}/mkfontdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{minfontdir} +%{_bindir}/ttmkfdir -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontdir}/gothic -o $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontdir}/gothic/fonts.scale +%{_bindir}/mkfontdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontdir}/gothic +%{_bindir}/ttmkfdir -d $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontdir}/mincho -o $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontdir}/mincho/fonts.scale +%{_bindir}/mkfontdir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontdir}/mincho # Install catalogue symlink -ln -sf %{gothfontdir} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{catalogue}/%{name}-gothic -ln -sf %{minfontdir} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{catalogue}/%{name}-mincho +ln -sf %{_fontdir}/gothic $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{catalogue}/%{name}-gothic +ln -sf %{_fontdir}/mincho $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{catalogue}/%{name}-mincho %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -%post gothic -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{gothfontdir} -fi - -%postun gothic -if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then - if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts - fi -fi - -%post mincho -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{minfontdir} -fi - -%postun mincho -if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then - if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts - fi -fi +%_font_pkg -n gothic -f %{fontconf}-gothic.conf gothic/sazanami-gothic.ttf -%files gothic -%defattr(-, root, root, -) -%doc doc README -%dir %{gothfontdir} -%{gothfontdir}/*.ttf -%verify(not md5 size mtime) %{gothfontdir}/fonts.dir -%verify(not md5 size mtime) %{gothfontdir}/fonts.scale -%verify(not md5 size mtime) %{gothfontdir}/fonts.alias +%dir %{_fontdir}/gothic %{catalogue}/%{name}-gothic +%verify(not md5 size mtime) %{_fontdir}/gothic/fonts.dir +%verify(not md5 size mtime) %{_fontdir}/gothic/fonts.scale +%verify(not md5 size mtime) %{_fontdir}/gothic/fonts.alias -%files mincho -%defattr(-, root, root, -) -%doc doc README -%dir %{minfontdir} -%{minfontdir}/*.ttf -%verify(not md5 size mtime) %{minfontdir}/fonts.dir -%verify(not md5 size mtime) %{minfontdir}/fonts.scale -%verify(not md5 size mtime) %{minfontdir}/fonts.alias +%_font_pkg -n mincho -f %{fontconf}-mincho.conf mincho/sazanami-mincho.ttf + +%dir %{_fontdir}/mincho %{catalogue}/%{name}-mincho +%verify(not md5 size mtime) %{_fontdir}/mincho/fonts.dir +%verify(not md5 size mtime) %{_fontdir}/mincho/fonts.scale +%verify(not md5 size mtime) %{_fontdir}/mincho/fonts.alias + +%files common +%defattr(0644, root, root, 0755) +%doc doc README +%dir %{_fontdir} %changelog +* Thu Dec 25 2008 Akira TAGOH - 0.20040629-5.20061016 +- Update the spec file to fit into new guideline. (#477453) + * Tue Aug 28 2007 Jens Petersen - 0.20040629-4.20061016 - use the standard font scriptlets (#259041) From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 25 06:04:57 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 01:04:57 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477453] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812250604.mBP64vii003644@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477453 Akira TAGOH changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Akira TAGOH 2008-12-25 01:04:56 EDT --- should be fixed in sazanami-fonts-0.20040629-5.20061016.fc11. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 25 06:47:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 01:47:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812250647.mBP6lZYj009572@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477478, which changed state. Bug 477478 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477478 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 25 06:47:34 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 01:47:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477478] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812250647.mBP6lYeR009547@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477478 Ville Skytt? changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |20081124-2 Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Ville Skytt? 2008-12-25 01:47:33 EDT --- Fixed in 20081124-2, better fix depends on vdr-text2skin gaining fontconfig support: http://projects.vdr-developer.org/issues/show/36 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 25 07:08:13 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 02:08:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477381] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812250708.mBP78Dsq030043@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477381 --- Comment #3 from Thorsten Leemhuis 2008-12-25 02:08:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Fonts in the package have been replaced with symlinks to system fonts. thx for that Wart. But please allow me one question reg. the patch: > +Requires: dejavu-fonts-experimental bitstream-vera-fonts > [...] > +ln -s %{_datadir}/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansCondensed.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/fonts/DejaVuSansCondensed.ttf > +ln -s %{_datadir}/fonts/bitstream-vera/Vera.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/%{name}/fonts/vera_sans.ttf Maybe a matter of taste, but wouldn't it be better to use those as requires: Requires: %{_datadir}/%{name}/fonts/DejaVuSansCondensed.ttf Requires: %{name}/fonts/vera_sans.ttf That way the broken deps report will yell as soon as the files move (which breaks the symlinks). That happens rarely (if ever), but I guess sooner or later it will... And yes, I'm aware that file deps outside of *bin/ have disadvantages -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 25 23:55:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:55:35 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812252355.mBPNtZa0025988@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 --- Comment #15 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2008-12-25 18:55:33 EDT --- Why is %_fontconfig_templatedir changed from %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.avail to %{_datadir}/fontconfig/conf.avail ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 26 13:52:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 08:52:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473552] Fix dejavu-* dependencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812261352.mBQDqEWm004759@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473552 Balint Cristian changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_DEV |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE --- Comment #2 from Balint Cristian 2008-12-26 08:52:13 EDT --- fixed in F11. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 26 14:55:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:55:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812261455.mBQEto9x000933@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-26 09:55:50 EDT --- rpmdevtools-7.0-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpmdevtools-7.0-1.fc9 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 26 14:53:55 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:53:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812261453.mBQErtw5000442@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-26 09:53:54 EDT --- rpmdevtools-7.0-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rpmdevtools-7.0-1.fc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 26 22:33:59 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:33:59 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477396] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812262233.mBQMXxpV000406@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477396 Hans de Goede changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede 2008-12-26 17:33:58 EDT --- hedgewars contained a private copy of dejavu, this has been replaced by a symlink to the system version in the latest package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 26 22:34:00 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:34:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812262234.mBQMY0sB000431@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477396, which changed state. Bug 477396 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477396 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 26 22:37:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:37:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812262237.mBQMbcZ3015591@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477379, which changed state. Bug 477379 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477379 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 26 22:37:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:37:37 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477379] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812262237.mBQMbbQD015567@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477379 Hans de Goede changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede 2008-12-26 17:37:36 EDT --- Ok, so it turns out that egoboo-data contained 2 freeware (but not free) fonts, these have been removed and instead it is using dejavu now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 10:33:04 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:33:04 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473561] Replace bitstream-vera dependencies with dejavu dependencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271033.mBRAX41Z030658@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473561 Terje R??sten changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #1 from Terje R??sten 2008-12-27 05:33:03 EDT --- Symlinked to Dejavu fonts: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=76492 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 10:46:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:46:14 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271046.mBRAkEiD017528@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477376, which changed state. Bug 477376 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477376 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 10:44:34 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:44:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 473562] Replace bitstream-vera dependencies with dejavu dependencies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271044.mBRAiY97016889@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473562 Terje R??sten changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #1 from Terje R??sten 2008-12-27 05:44:33 EDT --- Moved to Dejavu fonts: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1022733 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 10:46:13 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:46:13 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477376] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271046.mBRAkDZP017502@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477376 Terje R??sten changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Terje R??sten 2008-12-27 05:46:12 EDT --- Symlinked to Dejavu fonts: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=76493 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 13:09:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 08:09:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271309.mBRD93K0009399@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477377, which changed state. Bug 477377 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477377 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 13:09:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 08:09:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477377] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271309.mBRD93ov009374@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477377 Terje R??sten changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Terje R??sten 2008-12-27 08:09:02 EDT --- Switched to Dejavu fonts (symlinked): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=76498 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 14:14:48 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:14:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271414.mBREEmxZ021701@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477388, which changed state. Bug 477388 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477388 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 14:13:31 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:13:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271413.mBREDVk7021556@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477399, which changed state. Bug 477399 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477399 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 14:13:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:13:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477399] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271413.mBREDUf6021528@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477399 Hans de Goede changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede 2008-12-27 09:13:30 EDT --- * Sat Dec 27 2008 Hans de Goede 6.4.5.5-5 - Remove 2 included copies of the non Free artbrush font (rh 477399) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 14:14:48 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:14:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477388] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271414.mBREEmgA021677@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477388 Hans de Goede changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede 2008-12-27 09:14:47 EDT --- * Sat Dec 27 2008 Hans de Goede 0.7.4-4 - Drop unclearly licensed Plakat-Fraktur font (and stop using it) - Put ShadowedBlack font in its own shadowedblack-fonts subpackage (rh 477388) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 14:20:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:20:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271420.mBREKgOe022973@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477434, which changed state. Bug 477434 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477434 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 14:20:41 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:20:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477434] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271420.mBREKfKr022933@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477434 Hans de Goede changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede 2008-12-27 09:20:40 EDT --- * Sat Dec 27 2008 Hans de Goede 1.6.0-3 - Remove non-free fonts from samples subpackage (rh 477434) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 14:48:25 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:48:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271448.mBREmPaO009916@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477456, which changed state. Bug 477456 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477456 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 14:48:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 09:48:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477456] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271448.mBREmO1F009890@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477456 Hans de Goede changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede 2008-12-27 09:48:23 EDT --- * Sat Dec 27 2008 Hans de Goede 1.0-3 - Replace included vera font copies with symlinks to dejavu (rh 477456) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 15:19:01 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:19:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271519.mBRFJ1aJ014835@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477454, which changed state. Bug 477454 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477454 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 15:19:00 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:19:00 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477454] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271519.mBRFJ0eK014810@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477454 Hans de Goede changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede 2008-12-27 10:18:59 EDT --- * Sat Dec 27 2008 Hans de Goede 41.3-4 - Replace included vera font with symlinks to dejavu (rh 477454) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 15:18:12 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:18:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271518.mBRFIC0T032065@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477470, which changed state. Bug 477470 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477470 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 15:18:11 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:18:11 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477470] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271518.mBRFIB2Q032040@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477470 Hans de Goede changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede 2008-12-27 10:18:10 EDT --- * Sat Dec 27 2008 Hans de Goede 1.1.4-7 - Replace included gnu freefont copy with a symlink to dejavu (rh 477470) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 15:31:05 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:31:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271531.mBRFV5pN001960@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477455, which changed state. Bug 477455 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477455 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 15:31:05 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:31:05 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477455] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271531.mBRFV5cR001932@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477455 Hans de Goede changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede 2008-12-27 10:31:03 EDT --- This package only contains symlinks to font files, closing. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 15:47:52 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:47:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271547.mBRFlqML019495@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477469, which changed state. Bug 477469 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477469 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 27 15:47:52 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:47:52 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477469] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812271547.mBRFlqZQ019471@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477469 Hans de Goede changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede 2008-12-27 10:47:51 EDT --- * Sat Dec 27 2008 Hans de Goede 071111-2 - Remove the non free Gunship and Commonwealth fonts (rh #477469) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Sun Dec 28 08:18:10 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:18:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18724] RFE: font merging In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081228081810.8B5F9130056@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18724 --- Comment #2 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-28 00:18:09 PST --- I think a target="scan" pattern should work here. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Sun Dec 28 08:19:38 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:19:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18724] RFE: font merging In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081228081938.96144130054@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18724 --- Comment #3 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-28 00:19:37 PST --- Nicolas, try something like this: Arial Unicode Arial You then need to force fc-cache to recache. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Sun Dec 28 08:22:10 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:22:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 18728] RFE: allow direct query of font files In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081228082211.0AD60130056@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18728 Behdad Esfahbod changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-28 00:22:09 PST --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 13019 *** -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 28 10:58:44 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 05:58:44 -0500 Subject: [Bug 478332] New: Nimbus Mono L Bold Oblique is not really monospace Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Nimbus Mono L Bold Oblique is not really monospace https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478332 Summary: Nimbus Mono L Bold Oblique is not really monospace Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: urw-fonts AssignedTo: than at redhat.com ReportedBy: besfahbo at redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: than at redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora Apparently glyph 227 (or maybe 226 according to fontforge) of /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n022024l.pfb has a width of 740 while all the other glyphs in the font have width 600. This causes fontconfig to mark the font as proportional instead of monospace. That then is causing other issues: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17493 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 28 16:20:29 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:20:29 -0500 Subject: [Bug 478332] Nimbus Mono L Bold Oblique is not really monospace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812281620.mBSGKTQG013547@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478332 James Cloos changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cloos at jhcloos.com --- Comment #1 from James Cloos 2008-12-28 11:20:28 EDT --- It is actually worse than that: :; awk '/WX/ {print $4 " " $5}' urw-fonts/n022024l.afm|sort|uniq -c 544 WX 747 116 WX 774 shows that two widths exist in the metrics in the afm file. :; t1disasm urw-fonts/n022024l.pfb |awk '/hsbw/ {print $(NF-1)}'|sort|uniq -c 544 579 116 600 1 775 confirms that info. (The one char with width 775 in the font is /.notdef.) And it is not just bold oblique. Oblique shows: :; t1disasm urw-fonts/n022023l.pfb |awk '/hsbw/ {print $(NF-1)}'|sort|uniq -c 1 583 1 592 547 598 111 600 1 775 and bold shows: :; t1disasm urw-fonts/n022004l.pfb |awk '/hsbw/ {print $(NF-1)}'|sort|uniq -c 546 578 114 600 1 775 Only the base face gets it right: :; t1disasm urw-fonts/n022003l.pfb |awk '/hsbw/ {print $(NF-1)}'|sort|uniq -c 661 600 (Courier is defined to have a width of 600 in 1000 unit/em space; that makes for a 2:1 aspect ratio when set 10/12. Most other monowidth fonts match that width; CMTT is the most prevalent exception, given that it was designed for use in a narrow book page.) The fix is best started with t1disasm, t1asm and one's choice of sed, awk, perl or a text editor. In the t1disasm output, do: s/\d+ hsbw/600 hsbw/ then bump the font?s version and then use t1asm to convert that back to a pfb. For the afm files, it is: s/ WX \d+ / WX 600 / and a similar bump to the Version: line. (Yes, the afm files for Nimbus Mono are completely screwed if it is supposed to be Courier-compatible.) That might leave some glyphs uncentered. If so, a bit of tweaking will be necesary. A quick check, however, using ftview suggests that the above changes are enough. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 28 17:25:55 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:25:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 478332] Nimbus Mono L Bold Oblique is not really monospace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812281725.mBSHPtjN022637@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478332 --- Comment #2 from James Cloos 2008-12-28 12:25:54 EDT --- Oh. I should add that I did not do the grep(1)ing on an rh or fedora box, so YMMV. The version I looked at came from an rh srpm named urw-fonts-2.3-6.1.1.src.rpm which has a sig date of Mon May 21 14:21:05 2007, Key ID b44269d04f2a6fd2. I don?t know how that compares with the version(s?) shipping in current rh or fedora releases. The Nimbus Mono faces were version 1.06. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 28 19:45:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:45:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 478332] Nimbus Mono L Bold Oblique is not really monospace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812281945.mBSJjgHJ010436@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478332 --- Comment #3 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-28 14:45:41 EDT --- $ awk '/WX/ {print $4 " " $5}' /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n022024l.afm|sort|uniq -c 518 WX 600 1 WX 740 $ t1disasm /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1//n022024l.pfb |awk '/hsbw/ {print $(NF-1)}'|sort|uniq -c 1 500 520 600 1 740 $ t1disasm /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n022023l.pfb |awk '/hsbw/ {print $(NF-1)}'|sort|uniq -c 533 600 $ t1disasm /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n022004l.pfb |awk '/hsbw/ {print $(NF-1)}'|sort|uniq -c 540 600 $ t1disasm /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n022003l.pfb |awk '/hsbw/ {print $(NF-1)}'|sort|uniq -c 563 600 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 28 20:25:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 15:25:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 478332] Nimbus Mono L Bold Oblique is not really monospace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812282025.mBSKP3Mh015699@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478332 --- Comment #4 from James Cloos 2008-12-28 15:25:02 EDT --- What is the rpm version? If it is newer than what I have here I need to post a bug for this dist about it.... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Sun Dec 28 20:52:37 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:52:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 16818] fontformat in match pattern is not respected? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081228205237.96E84130054@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16818 --- Comment #1 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-28 12:52:33 PST --- FWIW, these are the elements set by fcfreetype.c that are not matched: FC_SCALABLE FC_FULLNAME FC_CAPABILITY FC_FONTFORMAT I also tried breaking FC_CAPABILITY from one string into multiple ones, but seems like the cache only saves the first value for each element. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 28 21:17:25 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:17:25 -0500 Subject: [Bug 478332] Nimbus Mono L Bold Oblique is not really monospace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812282117.mBSLHPUH008076@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478332 --- Comment #5 from Behdad Esfahbod 2008-12-28 16:17:25 EDT --- urw-fonts-2.4-6.fc10.noarch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Dec 28 21:22:18 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:22:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 457947] Review Request: oldstandard-sfd-fonts - Old Standard Fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812282122.mBSLMI31024302@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947 --- Comment #24 from Martin-Gomez Pablo 2008-12-28 16:22:16 EDT --- * I don't understand the following code, eventually, it should be serif, no ? sans-serif * Put the following codes in section %prep after %setup (and not in %build or in %install): -------- for txt in OFL* ; do sed 's/\r//' $txt > $txt.new touch -r $txt $txt.new mv $txt.new $txt done install -m 644 -p %{SOURCE2} . -------- * Do the %post and the %postun are useful ? I just find them in some fonts and no wiki page about it. Nicolas, an explanation ? * Now, the change needed by the new guideline: - Add the following in the right place : BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel Requires: fontpackages-filesystem - Remove "%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname}" and replace all the "%{fontdir}" by "%{_fontdir}" (it's now an official macro) - Replace "%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf" and "%{fontdir}/*.ttf" by "%_font_pkg -f 60-%{fontname}.conf *.ttf" (- There is something else with templatedir macro, but i don't understand how it work, i'll see) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Mon Dec 29 08:53:37 2008 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 00:53:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Bug 13019] add fc-query In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20081229085337.7055E130054@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13019 Nicolas Mailhot changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs- | |list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 29 09:35:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:35:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812290935.mBT9ZUtB032249@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475593 --- Comment #16 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-29 04:35:28 EDT --- Because those are not user-modifiable config file but static system templates (ie, data). So according to the FHS they should be somewhere else. See the first FPC meeting minutes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 29 10:01:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:01:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477388] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812291001.mBTA1crj021738@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477388 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-29 05:01:37 EDT --- BTW, when you create a fonts subpackage, please consider adding it to the @fonts F11 comps group -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 29 09:57:38 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 04:57:38 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477381] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812290957.mBT9vcGn020957@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477381 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-29 04:57:37 EDT --- Using package deps or file deps is a long debate and I won't be pulled it in this this time :p However if your packages used to ship both Vera and DejaVu fonts please consider depending only on DejaVu packages since they are a superset of Vera and will already be in the install of most systems. BTW: both DejaVu and Vera had package layout changes in rawhide so don't add deps on F10 package names, they won't work. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 29 10:14:18 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:14:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812291014.mBTAEI5L023807@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055 --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-29 05:14:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > To summarize, in a nutshell, what I could work from is if I get: > > a) Confirmation that there are two font spec templates, > /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-{multi,single}.spec, and this is how it's > going to stay in the foreseeable future. We will keep two templates as long as no one finds a clean way to address both use cases with a single template. Realistically, since changing all the font packages in the distro to new guidelines is a lot of work, this won't happen before the F12 cycle (and probably not even then since no one has proposed new bright ideas so far) > b) Confirmation that the token in both of the above to be replaced with the > font "basename" is exactly "" (sans quotes), and this is how it's > going to stay in the foreseeable future. The templates are not intended to be changed now that the review phase is closed, the templates are documented in the wiki and many packagers have already converted to them (of course minimal bug-fixing will occur if people find problems but so far no one has complained about this part) > Please provide answers to these ASAP, we're starting to be a bit in a hurry to > get the next rpmdevtools out. I hope those answers are satisfactory. I won't have much internet access before 2009 sorry :( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 29 10:18:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:18:03 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812291018.mBTAI3ci007254@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055 --- Comment #9 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-29 05:18:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > > The rpm devs have announced they'll be internalising buildroot creation so > > anything that tries to manipulate it from scripts is doomed mid-term anyway. > > And %{buildroot} is both valid and more consistent with the rest of the > > template > > This has nothing to do with what sets the value of buildroot or how, and > nothing to do with modifying it. This is purely a stylistic issue which people > have very strong opinions on: some people prefer to write specfiles using shell > style variables, others rpm macro style. For example whether one wants to > write "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" or "rm -rf %{buildroot}" in specfiles. We have > support for honoring the user's preference in place in newspec if the templates > are written using the shell style variable syntax - by writing them in macro > style that preference is taken away (or additional code would need be added > that does it the other way around, but I'm not sure if it can be robustly > done). Again, see Suggestion for point 3 in comment 1 for more details how > this works currently. Is it possible for rpmdevtools to support replacing of the macro syntax too? Because I know many packagers use the templates as plain text templates too without use of rpmdevtools automation, and I'd really like the default not to be the shell variant in that case I also have some opinions on this point :p Of course it it's absolutely necessary for rpmdevtools I will change this. I didn't know you were performing post-processing on those parts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 29 10:56:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 05:56:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477606] RFE: warn on fonts installed outside %_fontbasedir In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812291056.mBTAuo2o031280@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477606 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-29 05:56:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > There was more than a month of public RFC when you could ask such questions > > (you were one of the handful of people explicitely CC-ed) > > In the mails that reached my inbox of that thread, I count total of 3 people > who provided *any* opinions of the proposal: You know how people are. You ask them to comment on public lists, and they comment via PM, non-logged IRC channels or even bugzilla entries :p Feedback was not limited to three people (for example Behdad whose opinion is critical since he's upstream and downstream for many text components did all his comments in small IRC dialogs) > For some reason the proposal was pushed through nevertheless, It was pushed nevertheless because the comments that were expressed were addressed, except for 1 FPC member who was against macros in any form and didn't convince the other FPC members. It's all in the FPC minutes. This is no different from any other FPC/FESCO decision and in fact this proposal was given bigger/longer public exposure than most to give everyone a chance to comment. There was no way for me to please both people who were rabidly against macros and people who wanted them in, I chose one option and FPC agreed with me. > and now that > you're asking people to spend their time adding support for it I'm asking people to add support since the published plan was always to ask people to add support, no one complained about this part in the long review phase, and FPC/FESCO approved it. I'm not ashamed on how this stuff was handled, I went above and beyond what is done for most guideline changes (one public multi-week RFC phase in october, first FPC session, another month of public review, test conversion on ~ 30 packages, ~ 12 public releases of the proposed templates, second FPC then FESCO session, full wiki documentation in more than a dozen of different pages, full distro font audit, etc). This was and still is a ton of work for me and yes, at some point other people in the distro are asked to contribute. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 29 11:03:08 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:03:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 457947] Review Request: oldstandard-sfd-fonts - Old Standard Fonts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812291103.mBTB38Y1032544@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947 --- Comment #25 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-29 06:03:04 EDT --- The new official templates have removed explicit post and postun in font specs because packagers were messing it up, review couldn't catch all the problems, and the fontconfig maintainer was unhappy at font packagers. Conversion of existing packages to new templates is ongoing and some still use the old conventions. Please make this new package conformant to the new packaging guidelines. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 29 11:50:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 06:50:22 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477481] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812291150.mBTBoM8P023510@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477481 --- Comment #4 from Mathieu Bridon 2008-12-29 06:50:21 EDT --- * First font: font.font I discussed it with the Adonthell devs, and in fact, this is not really a font. This is more like some picture and data used to render text with custom code in Adonthell. This means that such a "font" can not be used in other apps, say OOo for example. So, this doesn't make any sense splitting it in a subpackage and installing it system-wide. * Second font: avatar.ttf I contacted the 2 maintainers of the Adonthell package in Debian, both emails are unexisting o_O I might have one more way to contact the author of the font. However, I started playing with the spec file to remove the font totally from the game, and make it use one of the system fonts. I'm in contact with the Adonthell devs about how to do that properly and which one they would less dislike. So, working on it, just a status report :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 29 15:09:39 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:09:39 -0500 Subject: [Bug 478332] Nimbus Mono L Bold Oblique is not really monospace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812291509.mBTF9dKn027477@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478332 --- Comment #6 from James Cloos 2008-12-29 10:09:38 EDT --- Thanks. I grabbed that srpm. The broken glyph in that version is /dcaron. Testing it with the width set to 600 shows that the ?caron?? will stick out a bit; the glyph shape may need to be adjusted as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 29 17:10:02 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:10:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477371] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812291710.mBTHA23I031389@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477371 --- Comment #6 from Victor Bogado 2008-12-29 12:10:01 EDT --- - The simple template installs the font into a {_fontdir} but does not define this macro, where should this font be installed? - What is this %{name}-fontconfig.conf file, is there a template or tool to create it? - Is there a spec file that creates a font package as a sub-package so I could base my changes on? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Dec 29 20:59:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:59:24 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477402] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812292059.mBTKxOYA000826@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477402 Andy Shevchenko changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Andy Shevchenko 2008-12-29 15:59:23 EDT --- What about fonts which are dedicated to produce internal documentation? This package (jack-audio-connection-kit-devel indeed contains *.ttf file to build *.pdf documentation from a LaTeX file. So, I consider this requirement at least incorrent in such case. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 30 07:50:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:50:53 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477371] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812300750.mBU7or7D007074@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477371 --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-30 02:50:51 EDT --- If you add the fontpackages deps defined in the templates the macros will be imported correctly. To create a fonts subpackage in a non-fonts package you just need to follow the simple template using the -n switch in the fonts macro to point to the correct subpackage name -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 30 07:55:12 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:55:12 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477402] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812300755.mBU7tCE2023271@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477402 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-30 02:55:11 EDT --- Fonts used to produce internal documentation have the same legal constraints as fonts used in other ways. So yes if you ship ttf fonts for any reason you need to follow the same guidelines as everyone else. If you don't want to make a proper font package or subpackage you should work out with our TEX packagers how to use system TEX materials instead of shipping your own. But packaging fonts properly is likely to be less work -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 30 10:39:16 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 05:39:16 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477388] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812301039.mBUAdGFQ019842@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477388 --- Comment #4 from Hans de Goede 2008-12-30 05:39:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > BTW, when you create a fonts subpackage, please consider adding it to the > @fonts F11 comps group Good point, done! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 30 13:05:41 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 08:05:41 -0500 Subject: [Bug 476427] [te_IN] - Consonant+Virama+Consonant+Virama+space renders the second virama as a separate glyph in lohit-telugu font In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812301305.mBUD5f0m013051@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476427 --- Comment #2 from Ravi Chandra 2008-12-30 08:05:40 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=327959) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=327959) The screen shot of the problematic telugu script See the attached jpeg image to know why the problem occurs. Seems to be appearing when the user types consonant+consonant+^ key combination....... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From sarantis at fedoraproject.org Tue Dec 30 14:08:08 2008 From: sarantis at fedoraproject.org (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Subject: rpms/mgopen-fonts/devel .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 mgopen-fonts.spec, 1.8, 1.9 sources, 1.2, 1.3 Message-ID: <20081230140808.C4F4A70115@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Author: sarantis Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/mgopen-fonts/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv13852 Modified Files: .cvsignore mgopen-fonts.spec sources Log Message: - Restructure spec file according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes - Provide fontconfig files for the fonts - Provide alias for VAG rounded --> Modata (bug #472835) Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/mgopen-fonts/devel/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- .cvsignore 7 Jul 2005 09:44:04 -0000 1.2 +++ .cvsignore 30 Dec 2008 14:07:38 -0000 1.3 @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ -MgOpen-20050515-doc.tar.gz MgOpen-20050515.tar.gz +MgOpen-20050515-doc.tar.gz +mgopen-fontconfig.tar.gz Index: mgopen-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/mgopen-fonts/devel/mgopen-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.8 retrieving revision 1.9 diff -u -r1.8 -r1.9 --- mgopen-fonts.spec 19 Dec 2008 21:39:11 -0000 1.8 +++ mgopen-fonts.spec 30 Dec 2008 14:07:38 -0000 1.9 @@ -1,12 +1,25 @@ %define fontname mgopen -%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname} -%define fontconfdir %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.d +%define fontconf 61-%{fontname} %define archivename MgOpen %define upstream_date 20050515 +# Common description +%define common_desc The MgOpen fonts are a font family that includes Latin and Greek glyphs.\ +The fonts have been released under a liberal license, similar to the\ +license covering the Bitstream Vera fonts. + +# Compat description +%define compat_desc \ +This package only exists to help transition pre Fedora 11 MgOpen font users to\ +the new package split. It will be removed after one distribution release cycle,\ +please do not reference it or depend on it in any way.\ +\ +It can be safely uninstalled. + + Name: %{fontname}-fonts Version: 0.%{upstream_date} -Release: 8%{?dist} +Release: 9%{?dist} Summary: Truetype greek fonts Group: User Interface/X License: MgOpen @@ -16,54 +29,146 @@ Source1: %{archivename}-%{upstream_date}-doc.tar.gz # Tarball of the documentation on the site http://www.ellak.gr/fonts/mgopen/ # The LICENCE file is an excerpt from the html page +Source2: %{fontname}-fontconfig.tar.gz +# Tarball of fontconfig files for each font + BuildRoot: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) BuildArch: noarch -# Conflicts: fontconfig < 2.3.93 - +BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel +Requires: fontpackages-filesystem %description -The MgOpen fonts are a font family that includes Latin and Greek glyphs. -The fonts have been released under a liberal license, similar to the -license covering the Bitstream Vera fonts. +%common_desc + +%package common +Summary: Truetype greek fonts, common files (documentation???) +Group: User Interface/X + +Obsoletes: mgopen-fonts<0.20050515-8 + +%description common +%common_desc + +This package consists of files used by other MgOpen packages. + +%package compat +Summary: Truetype greek fonts, compatibility package +Group: User Interface/X + +Obsoletes: mgopen-fonts<0.20050515-6 + +Requires: %{name}-canonica, %{name}-cosmetica, %{name}-modata, %{name}-moderna + +%description compat +%common_desc +%compat_desc + + +%package canonica +Summary: Truetype variable-stroke-width serif font faces +Group: User Interface/X +Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} + +%description canonica +%common_desc + +This package contains the MgOpen Canonica serif variable-stroke-width typeface, +which is based on the design of Times Roman. + +%_font_pkg -n canonica -f %{fontconf}-canonica.conf MgOpenCanonica*.ttf + +%package cosmetica +Summary: Truetype variable-stroke-width sans serif font faces +Group: User Interface/X +Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} + +%description cosmetica +%common_desc + +This package contains the MgOpen Cosmetica sans serif variable-stroke-width +typeface, which is based on the design of Optima. + +%_font_pkg -n cosmetica -f %{fontconf}-cosmetica.conf MgOpenCosmetica*.ttf + +%package modata +Summary: Truetype fixed-stroke-width sans serif font faces +Group: User Interface/X +Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} + +%description modata +%common_desc + +This package contains the MgOpen Modata sans serif fixed-stroke-width +which is based on the design of VAG rounded. + +%_font_pkg -n modata -f %{fontconf}-modata.conf MgOpenModata*.ttf + +%package moderna +Summary: Truetype fixed-stroke-width sans serif font faces +Group: User Interface/X +Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release} + +%description moderna +%common_desc + +This package contains the MgOpen Moderna sans serif fixed-stroke-width +typeface which is based on the design of Helvetica. + +%_font_pkg -n moderna -f %{fontconf}-moderna.conf MgOpenModerna*.ttf + %prep -%setup -q -c -a1 -n %{archivename}-%{version} +%setup -q -c -a1 -a2 -n %{archivename}-%{version} iconv -f ISO-8859-1 -t UTF-8 LICENCE > LICENCE.tmp; mv LICENCE.tmp LICENCE %build %install rm -rf %{buildroot} -install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{fontdir} -install -m 0644 *.ttf %{buildroot}%{fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0644 -p *.ttf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir} +install -m 0755 -d %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir} \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir} -%clean -rm -rf %{buildroot} +install -m 0644 -p fontconfig/%{fontname}-canonica.conf \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}-canonica.conf +install -m 0644 -p fontconfig/%{fontname}-cosmetica.conf \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}-cosmetica.conf +install -m 0644 -p fontconfig/%{fontname}-modata.conf \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}-modata.conf +install -m 0644 -p fontconfig/%{fontname}-moderna.conf \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}-moderna.conf + +for fontconf in %{fontconf}-canonica.conf \ + %{fontconf}-cosmetica.conf \ + %{fontconf}-modata.conf \ + %{fontconf}-moderna.conf ; do + ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/$fontconf \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/$fontconf +done -%post -if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache -r %{fontdir} || : -fi - -%postun -if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then - if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then - %{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{fontdir} || : - fi -fi +%clean +rm -rf %{buildroot} -%files +%files common %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc LICENCE mgopen.html _files/ -%dir %{fontdir} -%{fontdir}/*.ttf +%dir %{_fontdir} +%files compat + %changelog +* Tue Dec 30 2008 Sarantis Paskalis - 0.20050515-9 +- Restructure spec file according to + https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes +- Provide fontconfig files for the fonts +- Provide alias for VAG rounded --> Modata (bug #472835) + * Fri Dec 19 2008 Jason L Tibbitts III - 0.20050515-8 - It was decided that the license for these fonts is sufficiently different from Vera to require a different license tag. Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/mgopen-fonts/devel/sources,v retrieving revision 1.2 retrieving revision 1.3 diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3 --- sources 7 Jul 2005 09:44:04 -0000 1.2 +++ sources 30 Dec 2008 14:07:38 -0000 1.3 @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ -eb667a1458a92bc4d4e9a1f5924f6e61 MgOpen-20050515-doc.tar.gz 9ad4bba3d173e92734320286bfff4c8e MgOpen-20050515.tar.gz +eb667a1458a92bc4d4e9a1f5924f6e61 MgOpen-20050515-doc.tar.gz +c01d7492aa697128799b5c2cc8dd1997 mgopen-fontconfig.tar.gz From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 30 14:17:01 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:17:01 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477371] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812301417.mBUEH1QK010430@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477371 Victor Bogado changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #8 from Victor Bogado 2008-12-30 09:17:00 EDT --- Dumb me... all I had to do was install the package :P Could you check if I've done everything correctly, before I upload it to CVS? The spec and srpm package are at : http://bogado.net/rpm/cave9-0.3-4.bog10.src.rpm http://bogado.net/rpm/cave9.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 30 14:40:34 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:40:34 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477371] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812301440.mBUEeYAO031182@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477371 --- Comment #9 from Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-30 09:40:34 EDT --- 1. You need to specify the font files you installed in %_font_pkg 2. Since you know what sort of font it is, there is no reason not to ship a fontconfig file, you have simple templates in fontpackages-devel 3. do not forget to add the lines to claim ownership of %{_fontdir} after the %_font_pkg macro line -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 30 23:43:48 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:43:48 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812302343.mBUNhmH4018826@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-30 18:43:47 EDT --- rpmdevtools-7.0-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing-newkey update rpmdevtools'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2008-11861 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 30 23:53:31 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:53:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477055] Please drop fonts spec template from rpmdevtools In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812302353.mBUNrVEj007281@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477055 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System 2008-12-30 18:53:30 EDT --- rpmdevtools-7.0-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update rpmdevtools'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2008-11941 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 02:27:31 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:27:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477406] kdeedu: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812310227.mBV2RV8t030508@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477406 Sven Lankes changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sven at lank.es --- Comment #5 from Sven Lankes 2008-12-30 21:27:30 EDT --- Domestic_manners is currently not on the wishlist - it is here http://www.urbanfonts.com/fonts/Domestic_Manners.htm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 02:38:27 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:38:27 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477406] kdeedu: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812310238.mBV2cR7k032068@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477406 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler 2008-12-30 21:38:27 EDT --- It's from the same author as Dustismo Roman. There are some more of his fonts. Unfortunately, the original site (www.dustismo.com) is no longer up, so we have to trust third-party sites to tell the truth about licensing, e.g.: http://patch-tracking.debian.net/patch/debianonly/view/ttf-dustin/20030517-4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 02:44:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:44:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477406] kdeedu: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812310244.mBV2igAd015196@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477406 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler 2008-12-30 21:44:41 EDT --- See also http://www.1001fonts.com/member_profile.html?author_id=1719 - the ZIP files in there have a license.txt saying they're GPLv2+ (which matches the information from the Debian package). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 10:05:42 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 05:05:42 -0500 Subject: [Bug 472835] Add VAG Rounded aliases to In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812311005.mBVA5geE022930@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472835 Sarantis Paskalis changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #6 from Sarantis Paskalis 2008-12-31 05:05:40 EDT --- Fixed in 0.20050519-9 (rawhide). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 10:06:51 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 05:06:51 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812311006.mBVA6prl008370@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477425, which changed state. Bug 477425 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477425 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 10:06:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 05:06:50 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477425] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812311006.mBVA6ox9008345@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477425 Sarantis Paskalis changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Sarantis Paskalis 2008-12-31 05:06:49 EDT --- Fixed in 0.20050519-9 (rawhide). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 13:50:07 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:50:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477416] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812311350.mBVDo7wB031959@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477416 Jon Ciesla changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla 2008-12-31 08:50:06 EDT --- Split -fonts, built in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 13:50:08 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:50:08 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812311350.mBVDo8K9031984@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477416, which changed state. Bug 477416 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477416 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 15:50:31 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:50:31 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812311550.mBVFoVnu021320@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477391, which changed state. Bug 477391 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477391 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 15:50:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:50:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477391] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812311550.mBVFoUtZ021295@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477391 Jon Ciesla changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla 2008-12-31 10:50:29 EDT --- Symlinked and required, built in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 15:55:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:55:06 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477482] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812311555.mBVFt6Qp022027@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477482 Jon Ciesla changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla 2008-12-31 10:55:05 EDT --- Fixed in 1.4.7-1, thanks Warren! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 15:55:07 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:55:07 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812311555.mBVFt7HK022053@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477482, which changed state. Bug 477482 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477482 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 16:20:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:20:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477485] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812311620.mBVGKkD8026243@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477485 Jon Ciesla changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla 2008-12-31 11:20:45 EDT --- Symlinked and required, built in rawhide. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 16:20:47 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:20:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812311620.mBVGKlVT026268@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477485, which changed state. Bug 477485 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477485 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 16:35:55 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:35:55 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477427] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812311635.mBVGZtqg013228@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477427 Jon Ciesla changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot at l | |aposte.net) --- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla 2008-12-31 11:35:54 EDT --- Moodle's fonts are these: ./lang/sm_utf8/fonts/default.ttf ./lang/km_utf8/fonts/default.ttf ./lang/to_utf8/fonts/default.ttf ./lib/default.ttf The first three are already in language pack subpackages, and the last is apparently custom and not provided elsewhere, AFAICT. It's also only 503k. I understand and support both the new font guidelines and the reasons for them, but is a subpackage really the best solution here? If it were more fonts, I'd just do it, but I question the utility for one file. Would it be sufficient for me to document my reasoning in the spec and close the bug? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 19:00:18 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:00:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477482] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812311900.mBVJ0IxL017687@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477482 --- Comment #3 from Warren Togami 2008-12-31 14:00:17 EDT --- Jon, technically further work should be done on this. It is stupid that it expects these fonts to be in a certain directory. If I delete the symlinks, it fails to find the fonts even if they are installed in standard system directories and used by other applications. This is a bug in wesnoth. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 19:03:18 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 14:03:18 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477482] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812311903.mBVJ3IAB003350@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477482 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla 2008-12-31 14:03:17 EDT --- Shall I reopen and file a bug upstream? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 20:17:47 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:17:47 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477044] [Tracker] Deploy new font packaging guidelines for Fedora 11 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812312017.mBVKHlQl013909@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 Bug 477044 depends on bug 477415, which changed state. Bug 477415 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477415 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 31 20:17:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:17:46 -0500 Subject: [Bug 477415] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200812312017.mBVKHkp0013885@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477415 Tony Breeds changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #2 from Tony Breeds 2008-12-31 15:17:45 EDT --- I believe this is fixed in rawhide. I have removed the font as it isn't needed for the documentation to work correctly AFAICT. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.