From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Dec 6 16:54:22 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:54:22 +0100 Subject: Classroom session on Fedora fonts packaging Message-ID: <1228582462.2983.5.camel@arekh.okg> Hi all, This is a bit impromptu, but as part of the Fedora classroom program, I'll animate a session on fonts packaging tomorrow the 7th of December at 12:15 UTC in the #fedora-classroom irc.freenode.net IRC channel. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/IRC/Classroom The actual content of the session is rather fluid and will depend on the audience questions. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Dec 7 11:18:57 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:18:57 +0100 Subject: Classroom session on Fedora fonts packaging In-Reply-To: <1228582462.2983.5.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1228582462.2983.5.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1228648737.30858.2.camel@arekh.okg> Le samedi 06 d?cembre 2008 ? 17:54 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > Hi all, > > This is a bit impromptu, but as part of the Fedora classroom program, > I'll animate a session on fonts packaging tomorrow the 7th of December > at 12:15 UTC in the #fedora-classroom irc.freenode.net IRC channel. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/IRC/Classroom > > The actual content of the session is rather fluid and will depend on the > audience questions. This is just a reminder the session will start in one hour. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Dec 7 18:16:56 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:16:56 +0100 Subject: Classroom session on Fedora fonts packaging In-Reply-To: <1228582462.2983.5.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1228582462.2983.5.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1228673816.2820.1.camel@arekh.okg> Le samedi 06 d?cembre 2008 ? 17:54 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > Hi all, > > This is a bit impromptu, but as part of the Fedora classroom program, > I'll animate a session on fonts packaging tomorrow the 7th of December > at 12:15 UTC in the #fedora-classroom irc.freenode.net IRC channel. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/IRC/Classroom > > The actual content of the session is rather fluid and will depend on the > audience questions. The minutes of the session are now published here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_fonts_in_Fedora_(2008-12-07_classroom) With best regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Dec 9 12:25:33 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:25:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: arial narrow is broken since Fedora 8 In-Reply-To: <493E56B2.7060101@gmail.com> References: <493E56B2.7060101@gmail.com> Message-ID: Le Mar 9 d?cembre 2008 12:29, Julian Sikorski a ?crit : > IIRC in Fedora 8 timeframe it was decided > to > allow more font substyles than the 4 basic bold, italic, bold italic > and normal This was not decided in Fedora 8 this is how modern TrueType/OpenType fonts work. Fonts have not been limited to 4 faces for a long time, we at most decided to stop pretending it was the case. (Here is a MS paper on the subject in case you still think it is a Fedora-ism http://blogs.msdn.com/text/archive/2007/04/23/wpf-font-selection-model.aspx ) > All in all, all documents which were using arial > narrow > now refuse to render properly. Is there anything we could do to work > around this issue? Some sort of quirk? Workarounds are not sustainable given the problem is generic not limited to this font and people working on workarounds do not spend time working on the actual long-term fix. Please make the necessary noise in upstream bug trackers to make them fix their handling of modern fonts. You have at least some references to existing open bugs here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Known_fonts_and_text_bugs Fixing font selection is the first item in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop/Whiteboards/BetterFonts I have no idea on the resources the Desktop Team intends to spend on this whiteboard, or if it is even one of their priorities. But anyway, fixing stuff QT or KDE-side should be done by QT or KDE people. Best regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Dec 9 13:25:59 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 14:25:59 +0100 (CET) Subject: arial narrow is broken since Fedora 8 In-Reply-To: <493E6F6A.3060806@gmail.com> References: <493E56B2.7060101@gmail.com> <493E6F6A.3060806@gmail.com> Message-ID: Le Mar 9 d?cembre 2008 14:15, Julian Sikorski a ?crit : > I added a comment to freedesktop bug #18725, I'm not sure if it's the > right one. It's not the right one, and again please spend your energy lobbying for a long term-fix in *every* upstream bugzilla instead of muddying waters by asking to a return to the good old days which won't happen as the technical context changed. I know it's more work for you. Life sucks. -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Dec 9 14:26:22 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:26:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: arial narrow is broken since Fedora 8 In-Reply-To: <493E7A7F.8010601@gmail.com> References: <493E56B2.7060101@gmail.com> <493E6F6A.3060806@gmail.com> <493E7A7F.8010601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <14bae52d8da7c7ba39b36567fdde86d3.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mar 9 d?cembre 2008 15:02, Julian Sikorski a ?crit : > Which is the right one then? I think openoffice issue 79878 could be a > good choice, If you only care about OO.o this is the right one, but that won't fix KDE and friends. > but I'm not sure about freedesktop one. I'm not that > interested in others, since my document work is mainly done in oo.o. > Besides, I guess that fontconfig needs to work properly before > anything else will, right? Fontconfig does work properly today. What does not work is apps that assume there are only 4 font faces possible and can not handle what fontconfig returns them for modern fonts. http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=79878#desc27 -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Dec 9 14:50:58 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 15:50:58 +0100 (CET) Subject: arial narrow is broken since Fedora 8 In-Reply-To: <493E82A1.1040408@gmail.com> References: <493E56B2.7060101@gmail.com> <493E6F6A.3060806@gmail.com> <493E7A7F.8010601@gmail.com> <14bae52d8da7c7ba39b36567fdde86d3.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <493E82A1.1040408@gmail.com> Message-ID: Le Mar 9 d?cembre 2008 15:37, Julian Sikorski a ?crit : > If I remember correctly, a while ago you told me that gtk font > selector > should be working correctly as well. The thing is that it does show > "extraordinary" typefaces for let's say DejaVu LGC Sans, but for Arial > the list is pretty much busted - please see the screenshot I attached > to > the Red Hat bug #466678 (mentioned in the first email). Which software > could be responsible for this? I suspected fontconfig. The freely accessible arial you find on the web is an old version that does not declare the same stuff as modern versions. Microsoft does not update it anymore. Having a way to tell fontconfig "this is an old font with missing modern metadata, here is the info which is missing" so it's treated the same way as modern fonts is the object of the freedesktop bug you've already commented on. -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Dec 9 15:02:46 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 16:02:46 +0100 (CET) Subject: arial narrow is broken since Fedora 8 In-Reply-To: <493E8550.9010404@gmail.com> References: <493E56B2.7060101@gmail.com> <493E6F6A.3060806@gmail.com> <493E7A7F.8010601@gmail.com> <14bae52d8da7c7ba39b36567fdde86d3.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <493E82A1.1040408@gmail.com> <493E8550.9010404@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8424b9f95651d2d4605046cbac353d58.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mar 9 d?cembre 2008 15:48, Julian Sikorski a ?crit : > > Hmm, I did some more testing and it really seems that something gets > messed up at the point at which arial is merged with arial narrow. Just open a bug @gnome.org then, putting fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com in CC. -- Nicolas Mailhot From kevin.kofler at chello.at Wed Dec 10 00:54:34 2008 From: kevin.kofler at chello.at (Kevin Kofler) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:54:34 +0100 Subject: arial narrow is broken since Fedora 8 References: <493E56B2.7060101@gmail.com> <493E6F6A.3060806@gmail.com> Message-ID: Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > It's not the right one, and again please spend your energy lobbying > for a long term-fix in *every* upstream bugzilla instead of muddying > waters by asking to a return to the good old days which won't happen > as the technical context changed. Please do not ignore real-world usability in your quest for perfection. Half-baked support for useless font "features" is counterproductive. It's similar with Latin ligatures (thankfully in that case the fix turned out trivial, though it doesn't fix the issue completely because fonts may also define ligatures other than the standard Unicode ligatures). IMHO it would be much better to keep all those features disabled (at least by default) until they actually *work* in all the major applications. If that's forever, so be it, those features can all be done without. Is having separate entries for "Arial" and "Arial Narrow" in the font list really such a serious issue that avoiding it is so important that it is worth breaking almost all applications in some way? Kevin Kofler From behdad at behdad.org Wed Dec 10 01:04:18 2008 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:04:18 -0500 Subject: arial narrow is broken since Fedora 8 In-Reply-To: References: <493E56B2.7060101@gmail.com> <493E6F6A.3060806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <493F1592.5040707@behdad.org> Kevin Kofler wrote: > Half-baked support for useless font "features" is counterproductive. It's > similar with Latin ligatures (thankfully in that case the fix turned out > trivial, though it doesn't fix the issue completely because fonts may also > define ligatures other than the standard Unicode ligatures). Talk is cheap. Show me the screenshot of a broken case. > IMHO it would > be much better to keep all those features disabled (at least by default) > until they actually *work* in all the major applications. If that's > forever, so be it, those features can all be done without. Apparently thousands of people think it works. If it doesn't for you, use some pre-GNOME, pre-KDE desktop on Debian stale, err, stable. > Is having separate entries for "Arial" and "Arial Narrow" in the font list > really such a serious issue that avoiding it is so important that it is > worth breaking almost all applications in some way? That has nothing to do with why the bug is there. The bug is there because no one every got to fix it. Part of the problem has been that I have no Free fonts installed that show that behavior. behdad > Kevin Kofler From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Dec 10 09:31:48 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:31:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: arial narrow is broken since Fedora 8 In-Reply-To: References: <493E56B2.7060101@gmail.com> <493E6F6A.3060806@gmail.com> Message-ID: <42e4d620f4f0538308e6e254b95f4122.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mer 10 d?cembre 2008 01:54, Kevin Kofler a ?crit : > Please do not ignore real-world usability in your quest for > perfection. This is not a quest of perfection this is getting font and text bugs fixed. The freetype autohinter has progressed because we've enabled it in Fedora despite its problems and told people to report bugs upstream instead of helping them enable the bytecode interpreter and ignore the problem. OO.o has started working on OpenType CFF support because we told them plainly we would not stop merging fonts in this format or prioritize OpenType TTF just so people didn't notice that unlike other apps, OO.o didn't work. Ligature support was fixed in Firefox because we didn't try to hide them and so people complained upstream of upstream bugs. Likewise ligature support was lately fixed in freetype, again because we didn't hide the problem and people complained in the right place (upstream issue trackers, not general-purpose downstream lists). When we tried to hide a problem by removing triggering glyphs font-side there was 0% progress on fixing application-side and some upstreams still argue we should restore the hiding so they don't have to bother. Red Hat tried to avoid font problems by not merging anything that looked like it would trigger application bugs, and had to shell some millions later for Liberation; complaining at the same time the FLOSS font scene really was not active enough for them to rely on it. Well, if you want activity you have to support this activity not ignore it and hope things will magically perfect themselves without distro-side exposition. Your proposition is made of 100% pure un-adultered FAIL. And facts back me up on this. You'll find scores of people to rewrite spontaneously media players, MUAs, or the distro boot chrome, but people won't work on font problems unless users complain to them, and users won't complain if you hide or diffuse the problems. They'll just note Fedora font support is crap, without pointing to any specific fact. Just Google for 'linux fonts', and you'll find many such reports, culminating around 2006, which incidently is when Fedora decided to get its feet wet, and released Fedora 6 with DejaVu LGC as default, breaking the status quo and starting the virtuous circle of upstream fixes. True, even with users complaining, some bugs take ages to get fixed, but the way to accelerate this is to get more users to complain, not remove the complains. If some of your favorite DEs or apps are not fixed yet organise fellow users and put some pression upstream (or, better, find someone to submit upstream a patch). I personally think our current course is the best to ? [lead] the advancement of free, open software and content. ? Anyway, I'm sick of repeating the same arguments in different forums. Here's the deal: you disagree with our current font strategy, so go convince FESCO. If FESCO agrees with you, I'll happily give you the Fonts SIG keys, and let you manage as you wish from now on. I personnaly do not intend to waste my personal time trying to improve the Fedora font situation if one of the precious few levers I have at my disposition, users complaining upstream of problems, is removed. And that's the last thing I'll write on the subject. -- Nicolas Mailhot From benlaenen at gmail.com Wed Dec 10 12:21:33 2008 From: benlaenen at gmail.com (Ben Laenen) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:21:33 +0100 Subject: arial narrow is broken since Fedora 8 In-Reply-To: <493F1592.5040707@behdad.org> References: <493E56B2.7060101@gmail.com> <493F1592.5040707@behdad.org> Message-ID: <200812101321.33540.benlaenen@gmail.com> On Wednesday 10 December 2008, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > That has nothing to do with why the bug is there. The bug is there > because no one every got to fix it. Part of the problem has been > that I have no Free fonts installed that show that behavior. When it comes to font styles, this should give you a test case: http://home.sus.mcgill.ca/~moyogo/fonts/test/Jaja-All-OTF.zip (more at http://home.sus.mcgill.ca/~moyogo/fonts/test/ ) I'd like to see a KDE or Gnome dialog capable of showing all 62 (including outlines) :-) Ben From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Dec 20 16:13:35 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:13:35 +0100 Subject: New font packaging guidelines Message-ID: <1229789615.16655.28.camel@arekh.okg> Dear all, As some of you may know, 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 New font packages in review must now conform to the new templates, and current packages be converted in rawhide by their maintainers. To track the conversion progress I will henceforth file tickets in bugzilla. The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can serve as examples if the templates 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 Note that the discussed renames and splits have not been submitted for approval yet (I'm waiting for the rename process to be clarified), so the current change is purely technical. Nevertheless the new templates make creation of sub-packages considerably easier and safer, so I advice packagers to perform a split by family now if they don't mind. There was a broad consensus for the splitting in general, and the only thing that remains to be clarified before submission FPC-side is the wording of the few exceptions. Sincerely, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Dec 21 12:53:19 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:53:19 +0100 Subject: Orphaned font packages In-Reply-To: <494E3951.9030601@codewiz.org> References: <494E3951.9030601@codewiz.org> Message-ID: <1229863999.4483.2.camel@arekh.okg> Le dimanche 21 d?cembre 2008 ? 07:40 -0500, Bernie Innocenti a ?crit : > Hello, Hello, > I've just converted these two packages to the new font packaging > guidelines, but then I realized I didn't make an ideal maintainer > because I don't use them and I can't even read those languages :-) Actually, repoquery found 159 packages with TrueType, OpenType or Type1 fonts in them in rawhide, and you're one of the first packagers to respond to the resulting bug mass bombing, so I don't think anyone can complain of your maintainership. You're doing great, really. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Dec 21 19:08:41 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:08:41 +0100 Subject: Font package splitting clarification Message-ID: <1229886521.5818.7.camel@arekh.okg> Hi all, Since the discussion on font package splitting rules seems to be exhausted, and since no one stepped up with an obviously better proposal than mine, I've queued the following FPC-side: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21) I've tried to integrate all the exceptions that were brought up during the discussion and that were consensual, and to separate the rules from their rationale (so packagers in a hurry only need to read the first part). I've ended up with four simple master rules that should not be open to interpretation. Best regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From mgarski at post.pl Sun Dec 21 19:27:59 2008 From: mgarski at post.pl (Marcin Garski) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:27:59 +0100 Subject: Help with new font packaging guidelines (choosing font family) Message-ID: <494E98BF.4080901@post.pl> Hi, I'm trying to convert my packages (jomolhari-fonts, tibetan-machine-uni-fonts) to new font packaging guidelines. I've encounter one problem that stops me from filling all guidelines. I don't know the right font family (serif, sans serif, other?) for both fonts, so I can't create a fontconf files. How can I find/known this font family (both fonts represents Tibetan script which I don't know)? BTW. If both fonts are installed TMU is selected as a primary font for displaying Dzongkha text, is there a way to set fontconfig to prefer Jomolhari when dealing with Dzongkha text and TMU when displaying Tibetan text (Jomolhari is better for Dzongkha text and TMU for Tibetan text). -- Best regards Marcin Garski From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Dec 21 19:51:09 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 20:51:09 +0100 Subject: Help with new font packaging guidelines (choosing font family) In-Reply-To: <494E98BF.4080901@post.pl> References: <494E98BF.4080901@post.pl> Message-ID: <1229889069.10461.8.camel@arekh.okg> Le dimanche 21 d?cembre 2008 ? 20:27 +0100, Marcin Garski a ?crit : > Hi, Hi Marcin, > I'm trying to convert my packages (jomolhari-fonts, > tibetan-machine-uni-fonts) to new font packaging guidelines. Thank you for working on it! > I've encounter one problem that stops me from filling all guidelines. > I don't know the right font family (serif, sans serif, other?) for both > fonts, so I can't create a fontconf files. > > How can I find/known this font family (both fonts represents Tibetan > script which I don't know)? The current fontconfig classification is very latin-oriented, that's true. To decide on how the fonts should be best classified you need to ask the locals. Check on http://translate.fedoraproject.org/languages/ if there is a contact for those locales, and if not ask on the unicode mailing list where many language experts can help you http://unicode.org/mail-arch/ > BTW. If both fonts are installed TMU is selected as a primary font for > displaying Dzongkha text, is there a way to set fontconfig to prefer > Jomolhari when dealing with Dzongkha text and TMU when displaying > Tibetan text (Jomolhari is better for Dzongkha text and TMU for Tibetan > text). There are various ways to put one font first for specific locales. The current rather brutal way to do it is documented in /usr/share/doc/fontpackages-devel-*/fontconfig-templates/l10n-font-template.* It's not completely satisfactory, and Behdad is working on a new fontconfig release, so don't hesitate to ask him directly (he's often in the ##fonts irc channel as behdad) Sincerely, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Dec 22 11:16:40 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:16:40 +0100 Subject: Font package naming guidelines Message-ID: <1229944600.20011.10.camel@arekh.okg> Hi, Since there has been no more remarks on the clarified font package naming rules discussed as part of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes_(2008-11-08) I've queued the following for approval FPC-side: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_(2008-12-22) Except for the comps changes which seem not baked yet, that concludes the fonts-related guidelines changes and clarifications that were proposed for F11. Sincerely, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Dec 22 11:17:58 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:17:58 +0100 Subject: Font package splitting clarification Message-ID: <1229944678.20011.12.camel@arekh.okg> [Drat. I *knew* I had forgotten to spam one list] Hi all, Since the discussion on font package splitting rules seems to be exhausted, and since no one stepped up with an obviously better proposal than mine, I've queued the following FPC-side: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21) I've tried to integrate all the exceptions that were brought up during the discussion and that were consensual, and to separate the rules from their rationale (so packagers in a hurry only need to read the first part). I've ended up with four simple master rules that should not be open to interpretation. Best regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From paskalis at di.uoa.gr Mon Dec 22 12:56:42 2008 From: paskalis at di.uoa.gr (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:56:42 +0200 Subject: New font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: <1229789615.16655.28.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1229789615.16655.28.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <20081222125642.GA20909@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 05:13:35PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Dear all, > > As some of you may know, 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 > > New font packages in review must now conform to the new templates, and > current packages be converted in rawhide by their maintainers. To track > the conversion progress I will henceforth file tickets in bugzilla. Hello, Two of my packages are TeX fonts (tetex-font-kerkis and tetex-font-cm-lgc), which contain .pfb files (postscript type 1 from what I could find out). My questions are: - Should I place the .pfb files ( e.g. /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/kerkis/Kerkis-Bold.pfb) in /usr/share/fonts/kerkis/ and symlink them to their old (original) place or the reverse. - What about the other TeX relevant files? Should I do something with them or are they indifferent to the rest of the system. If there is an example TeX font package switched to the new format, it is not obvious from the package names. Please advise. Thanks, -- Sarantis From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Dec 22 14:08:21 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:08:21 +0100 Subject: New font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: <20081222125642.GA20909@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> References: <1229789615.16655.28.camel@arekh.okg> <20081222125642.GA20909@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> Message-ID: <1229954901.24585.44.camel@arekh.okg> Le lundi 22 d?cembre 2008 ? 14:56 +0200, Sarantis Paskalis a ?crit : > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 05:13:35PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Hi Sarantis, > > As some of you may know, after more than a month of consultation, > > feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved > > by FESCO. > Two of my packages are TeX fonts (tetex-font-kerkis and > tetex-font-cm-lgc), which contain .pfb files (postscript type 1 from > what I could find out). We've known for quite a while TEX had a problem with fonts installation and licensing. However repoquery unearthed many non-font packages that shipped fonts (not only TEX packages, and a lot more than I expected :(), so I'm going to write a general answer if you permit. 1. The target font management stack on Fedora is fontconfig. It has ?near universal? support including emacs-side?. 2. If your app is fontconfig-aware you just need to package the fonts it needs as a normal guidelines-compliant font package. Fontconfig will then locate them for your app no matter on how the font files are named or renamed. 3. If your app is not fontconfig-aware, you should politely remind your upstream it has a problem. 4. If your app is not fontconfig-aware, and there is no solution upstream in the short term, you still need to package the fonts using the normal Fedora fonts packaging guidelines. And then either patch your app to look for its fonts in the guidelines-compliant location or package a set of symlinks pointing to this location. 5. The preferred way to package fonts is to locate their original font upstream and package the original font release in a separate fonts-only package. 6. However, for fonts that are bundled in a software package with no other form of release, or fonts which have some additional non-standard stuff bundled with them (such as TEX packages), I don't think anyone will complain too loudly if you package them as subpackage(s) of your main package. As long as the subpackage(s) are clean, guidelines-compliant, and can be used by Fedora users without dragging with them your app or TEX or other non-general-purpose stuff. For example, for a ?tex-foo? TEX package, you could have: tex-foo-fonts-fontname1 (normal font subpackage #1) tex-foo-fonts-fontname2 (normal font subpackage #2) [?] tex-foo-fonts-common (common font subpackage that owns the fonts dirs and the fonts-licensing files?) tex-foo (main TEX package that depends on the tex-foo-fonts packages, includes symlinks to the font files in standard locations and other TEX stuff) The subpackaging logic is pretty much the same as in the spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec template included in fontpackages-devel http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please note that the current guidelines say that font packagers: ?SHOULD package each font family separately, and avoid font collections that mix fonts of different history, licensing, or origin?? There is some wiggle room between SHOULD and MUST, and it has posed problems in the past six months, so I've pushed the simpler http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21)#New_wording FPC-side yesterday. I hope that answers all your questions. ? After a period of ??utter luddites? shock? to quote a well-known xorg contributor http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.freedesktop.xorg/34322/focus=34334 ? of course if you're shipping a single font family, that requires a single font subpackage, there's no need to separate directory and licensing handling in a -common subpackage. Just create a single tex-foo-fonts-fontname in that case. ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages Sincerely, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Dec 22 18:42:09 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:42:09 +0100 Subject: Help with new font packaging guidelines (choosing font family) In-Reply-To: <1229889069.10461.8.camel@arekh.okg> References: <494E98BF.4080901@post.pl> <1229889069.10461.8.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1229971329.28883.1.camel@arekh.okg> > Le dimanche 21 d?cembre 2008 ? 20:27 +0100, Marcin Garski a ?crit : > > I've encounter one problem that stops me from filling all guidelines. > > I don't know the right font family (serif, sans serif, other?) for both > > fonts, so I can't create a fontconf files. > > > > How can I find/known this font family (both fonts represents Tibetan > > script which I don't know)? BTW you can certainly do it in two steps, first adapt the package structure, and then add the fontconfig files (they are strongly recommended but a package like vera does not have them for example since the vera rules are shipped in the fontconfig package) -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Dec 22 18:44:04 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:44:04 +0100 Subject: New font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: <1229954901.24585.44.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1229789615.16655.28.camel@arekh.okg> <20081222125642.GA20909@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> <1229954901.24585.44.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1229971444.28883.3.camel@arekh.okg> Le lundi 22 d?cembre 2008 ? 15:08 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > Le lundi 22 d?cembre 2008 ? 14:56 +0200, Sarantis Paskalis a ?crit : > > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 05:13:35PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Hi Sarantis, > 6. However, for fonts that are bundled in a software package with no > other form of release, or fonts which have some additional non-standard > stuff bundled with them (such as TEX packages), I don't think anyone > will complain too loudly if you package them as subpackage(s) of your > main package. As long as the subpackage(s) are clean, > guidelines-compliant, and can be used by Fedora users without dragging > with them your app or TEX or other non-general-purpose stuff. > > For example, for a ?tex-foo? TEX package, you could have: > > tex-foo-fonts-fontname1 (normal font subpackage #1) > tex-foo-fonts-fontname2 (normal font subpackage #2) > [?] > tex-foo-fonts-common (common font subpackage that owns the fonts dirs > and the fonts-licensing files?) > tex-foo (main TEX package that depends on the > tex-foo-fonts packages, includes symlinks to > the font files in standard locations and > other TEX stuff) > > The subpackaging logic is pretty much the same as in the > spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec template included in fontpackages-devel > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Also, I'm pretty sure the other TEX packagers would be delighted if someone documented this stuff from the TEX POW. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Dec 23 06:21:44 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:21:44 +0100 Subject: New font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: <604aa7910812221653w72df2525o7e65dd31945fb17f@mail.gmail.com> References: <1229789615.16655.28.camel@arekh.okg> <20081222125642.GA20909@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> <1229954901.24585.44.camel@arekh.okg> <604aa7910812221653w72df2525o7e65dd31945fb17f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1230013304.8447.1.camel@arekh.okg> Le lundi 22 d?cembre 2008 ? 15:53 -0900, Jeff Spaleta a ?crit : > One thing, can you look over the fonts included in matplotlib and see > if there are any fonts which are not-duplicates of existing packaged > fonts? Sure, just post the font names or filenames here or in the bug (otherwise google and repoquery are your friends) -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From paskalis at di.uoa.gr Tue Dec 23 11:58:18 2008 From: paskalis at di.uoa.gr (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:58:18 +0200 Subject: New font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: <1229954901.24585.44.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1229789615.16655.28.camel@arekh.okg> <20081222125642.GA20909@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> <1229954901.24585.44.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <20081223115818.GA29743@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 03:08:21PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le lundi 22 d?cembre 2008 ? 14:56 +0200, Sarantis Paskalis a ?crit : > > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 05:13:35PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Hi Sarantis, > > > > As some of you may know, after more than a month of consultation, > > > feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved > > > by FESCO. > > > Two of my packages are TeX fonts (tetex-font-kerkis and > > tetex-font-cm-lgc), which contain .pfb files (postscript type 1 from > > what I could find out). > > We've known for quite a while TEX had a problem with fonts installation > and licensing. However repoquery unearthed many non-font packages that > shipped fonts (not only TEX packages, and a lot more than I > expected :(), so I'm going to write a general answer if you permit. > > 1. The target font management stack on Fedora is fontconfig. It has > ?near universal? support including emacs-side?. > > 2. If your app is fontconfig-aware you just need to package the fonts it > needs as a normal guidelines-compliant font package. Fontconfig will > then locate them for your app no matter on how the font files are named > or renamed. > > 3. If your app is not fontconfig-aware, you should politely remind your > upstream it has a problem. > > 4. If your app is not fontconfig-aware, and there is no solution > upstream in the short term, you still need to package the fonts using > the normal Fedora fonts packaging guidelines. And then either patch your > app to look for its fonts in the guidelines-compliant location or > package a set of symlinks pointing to this location. > > 5. The preferred way to package fonts is to locate their original font > upstream and package the original font release in a separate fonts-only > package. > > 6. However, for fonts that are bundled in a software package with no > other form of release, or fonts which have some additional non-standard > stuff bundled with them (such as TEX packages), I don't think anyone > will complain too loudly if you package them as subpackage(s) of your > main package. As long as the subpackage(s) are clean, > guidelines-compliant, and can be used by Fedora users without dragging > with them your app or TEX or other non-general-purpose stuff. > > For example, for a ?tex-foo? TEX package, you could have: > > tex-foo-fonts-fontname1 (normal font subpackage #1) > tex-foo-fonts-fontname2 (normal font subpackage #2) > [?] > tex-foo-fonts-common (common font subpackage that owns the fonts dirs > and the fonts-licensing files?) > tex-foo (main TEX package that depends on the > tex-foo-fonts packages, includes symlinks to > the font files in standard locations and > other TEX stuff) > > The subpackaging logic is pretty much the same as in the > spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec template included in fontpackages-devel > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts > > Please note that the current guidelines say that font packagers: > ?SHOULD package each font family separately, and avoid font collections > that mix fonts of different history, licensing, or origin?? > > There is some wiggle room between SHOULD and MUST, and it has posed > problems in the past six months, so I've pushed the simpler > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21)#New_wording > FPC-side yesterday. > > I hope that answers all your questions. > > ? After a period of ??utter luddites? shock? to quote a well-known xorg > contributor > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.freedesktop.xorg/34322/focus=34334 > > ? of course if you're shipping a single font family, that requires a > single font subpackage, there's no need to separate directory and > licensing handling in a -common subpackage. Just create a single > tex-foo-fonts-fontname in that case. > > ? > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages Thanks for the really detailed guidelines. My packages are just TeX fonts (and their TeX related configuration), so my actions boil down to moving the actual font files under /usr/share/fonts and symlink them to their original directory. (I also have to rename the package but that is orthogonal to fonts and more related to TeX stuff after tetex EOL.) Thanks again, -- Sarantis From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Dec 23 12:35:32 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:35:32 +0100 (CET) Subject: New font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: <604aa7910812221653w72df2525o7e65dd31945fb17f@mail.gmail.com> References: <1229789615.16655.28.camel@arekh.okg> <20081222125642.GA20909@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> <1229954901.24585.44.camel@arekh.okg> <604aa7910812221653w72df2525o7e65dd31945fb17f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Le Mar 23 d?cembre 2008 01:53, Jeff Spaleta a ?crit : > python-matplotlib is carrying its own fonts around, which I didn't > catch. My bad. So thanks for doing the auto-review. We don't have any check to catch non-fonts packages that bundle fonts, even though we know that causes problems later, so really we are a bit under-tooled here :( Anyway, I'd like to remind every packager that decides to drop the TTF fonts he shipped in his non-font-package, that's it's a good idea to add a dep on the appropriate DejaVu family, and not on freefonts or bitstream vera (unless the package has specific style or metric requirements). DejaVu is in the default install set, the others aren't, so adding them as deps will result in more resource use mirror and user side (also freefonts will probably be renamed/reorganised before the end of the cycle). In Rawhide dejavu has been split in three packages so you only need to depend on the font family you actually need, not the full set. Sincerely, -- Nicolas Mailhot From paskalis at di.uoa.gr Tue Dec 30 14:29:10 2008 From: paskalis at di.uoa.gr (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:29:10 +0200 Subject: fontpackages template warnings Message-ID: <20081230142910.GA29904@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> Hello, I am converting my font packages to the new guidelines and hit some rpmlint warnings that appear to be template related. Specifically, I followed the /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec from fontpackages-devel that creates absolute symlinks between /etc/fonts/conf.d/$font.conf and /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/$font.conf rpmlint moans about the absolute symlink and wants a relative one. I don't really have an opinion about that and could not find any fedora policy on this one [1]. The other thing is a minor patch that distinguishes variable from macro in the same template (attached) Thanks, Sarantis [1] symlink rpmlint ticket http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/25 -------------- next part -------------- --- spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec.orig 2008-12-30 15:51:15.000000000 +0200 +++ spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec 2008-12-30 15:51:44.000000000 +0200 @@ -85,11 +85,11 @@ install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCEX} \ %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}-.conf -for fontconf in %{fontconf}-.conf \ - %{fontconf}-.conf \ - %{fontconf}-.conf ; do - ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/$fontconf \ - %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/$fontconf +for fconf in %{fontconf}-.conf \ + %{fontconf}-.conf \ + %{fontconf}-.conf ; do + ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/$fconf \ + %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/$fconf done From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Dec 30 15:37:15 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:37:15 +0100 (CET) Subject: fontpackages template warnings In-Reply-To: <20081230142910.GA29904@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> References: <20081230142910.GA29904@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> Message-ID: <9d8b98149e12fc36d76c5a2cc35b1d61.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mar 30 d?cembre 2008 15:29, Sarantis Paskalis a ?crit : > Hello, Hi, Thank you for adapting your packages and providing feedback! > I am converting my font packages to the new guidelines and hit some > rpmlint warnings that appear to be template related. Specifically, I > followed the /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec from > fontpackages-devel that creates absolute symlinks between > /etc/fonts/conf.d/$font.conf and > /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/$font.conf > rpmlint moans about the absolute symlink and wants a relative one. I > don't really have an opinion about that and could not find any fedora > policy on this one [1]. I didn't find a simple (for me and packagers) way to create relative symlinks here. Individual packages are not supposed to know the values of the directory macros since FPC asked for them in part to hide future value changes from individual packagers. Given that to my knowledge the relative symlink thing was never an official Fedora guideline, that chroots are considered broken by security people, that nowadays we have many virtualization options to achieve the same things without hitting absolute symlink and other security problems, and that no one complained during the review phase, I decided against overegineering and used simple absolute links. I'm open to better solutions that avoid the warning as long as the result stays simple and stupid. > The other thing is a minor patch that distinguishes variable from > macro in the same template (attached) That looks harmless enough. If you feel that improves the template legibility I will make the change this week end (but only in rawhide) Are you interested by commit access to the project? -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Dec 30 15:44:26 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:44:26 +0100 (CET) Subject: fontpackages template warnings In-Reply-To: <9d8b98149e12fc36d76c5a2cc35b1d61.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> References: <20081230142910.GA29904@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> <9d8b98149e12fc36d76c5a2cc35b1d61.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <937de2565ad43ad918ed7c6e1f296ee8.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mar 30 d?cembre 2008 16:37, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > > Le Mar 30 d?cembre 2008 15:29, Sarantis Paskalis a ?crit : >> Hello, > > Hi, > > Thank you for adapting your packages and providing feedback! > >> I am converting my font packages to the new guidelines and hit some >> rpmlint warnings that appear to be template related. Specifically, >> I >> followed the /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec from >> fontpackages-devel that creates absolute symlinks between >> /etc/fonts/conf.d/$font.conf and >> /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/$font.conf >> rpmlint moans about the absolute symlink and wants a relative one. >> I >> don't really have an opinion about that and could not find any >> fedora >> policy on this one [1]. > > I didn't find a simple (for me and packagers) way to create relative > symlinks here. Individual packages are not supposed to know the values > of the directory macros since FPC asked for them in part to hide > future value changes from individual packagers. drat, should have read your link before commenting. I'm not sure how ok it is to add a dep to symlinks for fontpackages-devel. It looks harmless enough, but is this package even in all our spins? I suppose if I change the templates to use the symlinks command to avoid the rpmlint warning, I need to notify FPC at least (even if it's a minor change, it's still a guidelines change) -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Dec 30 16:22:02 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:22:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: [OpenFontLibrary] comic fonts :) In-Reply-To: <733f2c730812300754i5f93c35u141efb7d4f74a625@mail.gmail.com> References: <733f2c730812300754i5f93c35u141efb7d4f74a625@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Le Mar 30 d?cembre 2008 16:54, Alexandre Prokoudine a ?crit : > > OK, > > Somebody wanted a free comic font? :) > > http://serafettin.sourceforge.net/ BTW oget asked recently on IRC where the GPL-ing of TSCu_Comic font occurred and where it had been traced, so I'd be interested in this info. That would be useful to add in the fontlog. Also if someone has current contacts for past contributors, it would be nice to get the font exception added to the license. -- Nicolas Mailhot From hiran.v at gmail.com Tue Dec 30 17:02:07 2008 From: hiran.v at gmail.com (H) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:32:07 +0530 Subject: [OpenFontLibrary] comic fonts :) In-Reply-To: References: <733f2c730812300754i5f93c35u141efb7d4f74a625@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1b6e7c770812300902h784e2d65pb8557da33fae3931@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/30 Nicolas Mailhot > > > Somebody wanted a free comic font? :) > > > > http://serafettin.sourceforge.net/ > My font http://hiran.in/blog/rufscript-font Its just a handwriting font, not meant to be a comic one, but works. licensed with gplv3+fe some latin glyphs are missing now, which will be added by feb 09 -- H IRC : HFactor | Phone : 09496346709 | PGP : 4634C034 | W : http://hiran.in Samuel Goldwyn - "Include me out." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Dec 30 17:32:21 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 18:32:21 +0100 (CET) Subject: [OpenFontLibrary] comic fonts :) In-Reply-To: <1b6e7c770812300902h784e2d65pb8557da33fae3931@mail.gmail.com> References: <733f2c730812300754i5f93c35u141efb7d4f74a625@mail.gmail.com> <1b6e7c770812300902h784e2d65pb8557da33fae3931@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4bdc7d624900d12262781bbacb546aa1.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mar 30 d?cembre 2008 18:02, H a ?crit : > 2008/12/30 Nicolas Mailhot Hi Hiran, >> > Somebody wanted a free comic font? :) >> > >> > http://serafettin.sourceforge.net/ >> > > My font http://hiran.in/blog/rufscript-font > > Its just a handwriting font, not meant to be a comic one, but works. > licensed with gplv3+fe > > some latin glyphs are missing now, which will be added by feb 09 Rest assured rufscript has not been forgotten and it will be imported Fedora-side as soon as his packager finishes taking care of the points noted during review. BTW since "some latin glyphs" can mean anything please target MES-1 compliance at least. That would be much appreciated by many European people. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From paskalis at di.uoa.gr Wed Dec 31 10:21:51 2008 From: paskalis at di.uoa.gr (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:21:51 +0200 Subject: fontpackages template warnings In-Reply-To: <9d8b98149e12fc36d76c5a2cc35b1d61.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> References: <20081230142910.GA29904@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> <9d8b98149e12fc36d76c5a2cc35b1d61.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20081231102151.GA5077@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 04:37:15PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > That looks harmless enough. If you feel that improves the template > legibility I will make the change this week end (but only in rawhide) Fine by me. Although this change is readability only to a template that must be edited anyway by the respective packagers, so I see no harm in applying the patch to F9 and F10. Anyway no big deal. > Are you interested by commit access to the project? Thanks, I'd be interested to help (time permitting of course) :) -- Sarantis From sven at lank.es Wed Dec 31 17:56:15 2008 From: sven at lank.es (Sven Lankes) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:56:15 +0100 Subject: First font-package Message-ID: <20081231175614.GA20726@killefiz> Hi, I have started to look into font-packaging as the kde-sig needs a couple of fonts that are currently shipped with e.g. kdeedu and kdelibs packaged separately. The first font I am looking into is dustismo: (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dustimo_fonts) (Dustismo is currently shipped with kdeedu: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477406) I have a first spec-file here: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SPECS/dustismo.spec http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SRPM/dustismo-fonts-20030207-1.fc11.src.rpm As my knowledge about fonts is basically zero I'd like to get some feedback on the spec-file before submitting this for a package review. The wishlist wiki-page mentions "GPL with font exception" for this font - but the font-exception is not in the license that is shipped with the fonts (GPLv2+) so this is probably wrong. The last update of this font was in 2003 - it is currently only available on 3rd-party font-sites. There doesn't seem to be an 'upstream' anymore. There are two things I wasn't quite able figure out using the fontsig-wiki-pages: 1. Is it acceptable to ship a font with only the ttf and no other 'source'? The spec template has this: > Building fonts from sources is always preferred. For GPLed or LGPLed > fonts this is required by the license. 2. I do need some help with filling the description with something meaningful Again quoting the spec-template: > Font descriptions must detail information on the font style, > Unicode coverage, and intended use[3] to help users choose the > right packages to install. ... What other information could/should I add to the description 3. fontconfig My feeling is that I don't need any fontconfig-files for a font like this. Am I right? Thanks for your feedback. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: sven at lankes.net