Problems detected in the efont-unicode-bdf rawhide package!
Nicolas Mailhot
nim at arekh.okg.redhat.com
Thu Oct 29 21:39:26 UTC 2009
Dear packager,
At 20091029T192211Z, while scanning the rawhide repository located at:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/static-repos/dist-rawhide-current/x86_64/
I have identified the following problems in your efont-unicode-bdf package:
SRPM RPM 5 9 11 17 19
efont-unicode-bdf efont-unicode-bdf 60 45 60 60 60
Total 60 45 60 60 60
5. Fonts in packages that do not respect font naming conventions
☛ Please respect font package naming conventions and provide consistent
packages to users. Some scripts may depend on strict package naming.
9. Font faces duplicated by different packages
☛ Face duplication wastes resources infrastructure and user side.
Very often an upstream that copied some fonts will forget to keep them up
to date, and the duplication will result in the distribution of old buggy
data. Even when some duplicated font faces are a genuine fork with
different features from the original, applications won't be able to select
them reliably because of naming collision.
We should always ship only one version of a font face in the repository,
and use fontconfig or symlinks to share it accross packages.
11. Packages that mix different font families
☛ Reliable font auto-installation requires shipping only one font family
per font package.
(If you've remapped some font names at the fontconfig level your package
may appear here pending some fontconfig fixes upstream is aware of).
17. Fonts with partial script coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to be
accepted by fontconfig as covering one or several scripts. Therefore they
could be made useful to more people with only a little effort.
To check a font file script coverage, run fc-query with FC_DEBUG=256 and
look for lines like: script-id¹(number) { list-of-unicode-codepoints }
For example “mi(2) { 1e34 1e35 }” means fontconfig will accept the tested
file for Maori if codepoints 1e34 and 1e35 are added.
If you feel fontconfig is requiring a glyph which is not strictly necessary
for a particular script, report the problem upstream².
¹ http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php
² https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=fontconfig
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the efont-unicode-bdf package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: efont-unicode-bdf.tar.xz
Type: application/x-xz-compressed-tar
Size: 33792 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-bugs-list/attachments/20091029/34afbeba/attachment.bin>
More information about the Fedora-fonts-bugs-list
mailing list