Problems detected in the ghostscript-fonts rawhide package!

Thu Oct 29 21:39:33 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 ghostscript-fonts package:

SRPM               RPM                4   6  8  9  11  17  19
ghostscript-fonts  ghostscript-fonts  17  2  4  8  17  17  17
                   Total              17  2  4  8  17  17  17

4. Fonts in packages that do not declare font metadata

    ☛ Font-specific rpm metadata is required for automatic font installation to
    work. If you apply our font packaging templates, it will be generated at
    package creation time.

6. Fonts that declare style attributes in family names

    ☛ To be properly processed by applications face qualifiers need to be
    declared in style names. Some application stacks such as Microsoft WPF will
    try to workaround bad font naming with dynamic renaming heuristics¹, but
    heuristics are brittle and pose interoperability problems with applications
    that do not use them.

    If one your font files is listed here please ask its upstream to fix its
    naming so it respects WWS conventions and does not need further
    reprocessing. And in the meanwhile patch it (if it is available in sfd
    format) or add a fontconfig rule to your package to hide the problem².

    There may be a few false positives in this test as some common face
    qualifiers can be used with a different meaning in family names.

    ¹ http://blogs.msdn.com/text/attachment/2249036.ashx
    http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/typotechnica2007/Font%20names.pdf
    http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/atypi2006/CSS%20&%20OT%2015.pdf
    ² cf the “fontpackages” remapping template; unfortunately this workaround
    won't fix problems for non-fontconfig applications, or when interoperating
    with other systems.

8. Exact font duplication

    ☛ Several packages duplicate font files with the same checksum. This
    needlessly wastes resources.

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 ghostscript-fonts 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: ghostscript-fonts.tar.xz
Type: application/x-xz-compressed-tar
Size: 20268 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-bugs-list/attachments/20091029/a3f4469d/attachment.bin>