[Bug 477410] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly 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 <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|CLOSED                      |ASSIGNED
         Resolution|RAWHIDE                     |




--- Comment #7 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>  2009-01-19 19:18:00 EDT ---
Some QA review:

1. the Microsoft font names are likely to be trademarked to hell, I hope
someone checked with spot when they were added to the package description

2. the URL should probably be changed to the new fedorahosted Liberation
homepage

3.
Requires:         %{name}-sans >= %{version}-%{release}
Requires:         %{name}-serif >= %{version}-%{release}
Requires:         %{name}-mono >= %{version}-%{release}

is going to create a huge mess. You don't have any packages named %{name}-foo
anymore, so package resolvers won't know what to do

4. If you want to create an upgrade path (good idea!) I suggest you do it in a
compat package like dejavu, vera and mgopen. The advantage of a compat package
is it has a different package name, so you don't mix past and present names,
and is obviously going away someday, so people won't expect you to keep it
forever

For example the new vera spec includes:

%package compat
Summary: Bitstream Vera, compatibility
Group:   User Interface/X

Obsoletes: bitstream-vera-fonts < 1.10-9
Requires:  %{fontname}-sans-fonts, %{fontname}-serif-fonts,
%{fontname}-sans-mono-fonts

%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.

[…]

%files compat

IIRC the empty %files is needed for rpm to create an empty subpackage

5. this is somewhat confusing, but you do not need for the common subpackage to
be named foo-common-fonts. I realise I hadn't really explained this point, so
I've added
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#Why_is_the_common_subpackage_in_the_multi-font-families_templates_named_foo-fonts-common_and_not_foo-common-fonts.3F

to the FAQ. You're not the first one to ask/make the mistake
(though it's mainly cosmetical)

6. Liberation is a bit special. It has specific fontconfig rules in fontconfig
itself to handle MS fonts substitution, so Behdad would like you not to include
fontconfig files in your liberation package (but do add them to non-Liberation
packages). Vera had the same treatment when it mattered and so our vera package
does not include fontconfig rules either

7. you do not need to require fontpackages-filesystem in the font subpackages,
they require the common subpackage and it requires in turn
fontpackages-filesystem do all is going to be well

8. you do not need to repeat the License info in each subpackage, if you don't
list it the value of the main License declaration is going to be inherited by
subpackages (you can check by doing a less on the package files once they're
built)

(you should not need to repeat Group either but this problem has only be fixed
recently in a rpm version not available on our builders)

9. you should not 
Obsoletes:    %{name}-foo < %{version}-%{release}

in your font subpackage, but Obsolete packages older than the particular
version where the renaming occured. For liberation probably

Obsoletes:    %{name}-foo < 1.04.93-4

10. The summary of your serif package has a problem, Liberation serif is not a
sans-serif font

11. someday you really need to build the ttf from sfds in %build. In the
meanwhile at least use the -p flag when installing the ttf files
install -m 0644 -p *.ttf %{buildroot}%{_fontdir}

12. what's the purpose of the cd ../ in the middle of %install?

13. you should probably create %{buildroot}%{catalogue} the same way the other
directories were created at the beginning of %install

And that's all for this package. I don't have the time to look at baekmuk
today, but I suppose a lot of the remarks apply to it 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.