From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Oct 12 14:04:05 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:04:05 +0200 Subject: Fontconfig rules installation guidelines change proposal Message-ID: <1223820245.9402.18.camel@arekh.okg> Hi all, I've queued the following small guideline change proposal for FPC consideration: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correction_(fontconfig) Please add comments, reactions and corrections in the wiki. 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 mnowak at redhat.com Mon Oct 13 08:50:35 2008 From: mnowak at redhat.com (Michal Nowak) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:50:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Font exception to GPLv3 was: contact kurditgroup In-Reply-To: <20080723072021.GC8434@dhcp-lab-198.englab.brq.redhat.com> Message-ID: <189675676.35141223887835054.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Hello. Can you please reply on this license change, or can you kindly give me a contact to someone, who might be helpful on discussing this addition to GPLv3? Thank you, Michal Nowak ----- "Michal Nowak" wrote: > ping? > > On 09:57 Wed 16 Jul , Michal Nowak wrote: > > Hi Bardaqani, > > > > sorry for not being clear on this for the first time. > > > > The problem with GPL licensed font is that when you for example > > create PDF file (like a book) the you usually embed the font inside > > the document and then is anyone able to see it correct even > > when he does not have the Kurdish font in system (really good > thing). > > > > But: When you have used GPL font (like Unikurd Web) inside PDF file > > > then you must license the file/book as a GPL too! And that's the > > problem. > > > > Because of this there's special Font Exception which solves that > > problem. > > > > What would help us a lot: > > > > 1. Re-license the fonts from 'GPLv3' to 'GPLv3 + exception'. > > Here's the link to such text: > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException > > > > 2. Write the text from the above link to the file gpl.txt inside > > unikurdweb.zip file. > > > > > > Solving points 1. and 2. will help us to distribute Your font in > > Fedora and thus helpfull for Kurdish writing/speaking users in > > general. > > > > Don't hesitate and write me in case of another questions or if > > you need any further guidance. > > > > Thank you, > > Michal > > > > > > On 23:43 Tue 15 Jul , bardaqani bardaqani wrote: > > > Dear Michal, > > > How can help you? should we out the license inside a PDF or what? > > > let me know > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM, wrote: > > > > > > >
align='right'>.Hi, > > > > I wish I package some Unikurd fonts to Fedora Linux > distribution
> > > >
> > > > The problem is actually the chosen license, which is plain > GPLv3. Here you > > > > can read why is the license not so well usable for usage e.g. > inside PDF. > > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException >
> > > >
> > > > Please reply to my email mnowak at redhat.com for further > information or > > > > point me to someone whom can I talk to.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for you time,
> > > > Michal Nowak
> > > >
> > > > Michal Nowak   uid:0
> > > >
> > > > 2008-07-15
> > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list From mnowak at redhat.com Mon Oct 13 08:54:39 2008 From: mnowak at redhat.com (Michal Nowak) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:54:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Provide SFD files for Unikurd Web Message-ID: <1606346315.35421223888079665.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Hello. Could you please provide SFD files on the web, from which are TTF fonts generated, in case you use fontforge? It would be helpful to have them when creating package for Fedora. Thank You, Michal Nowak From dave at lab6.com Mon Oct 13 12:58:30 2008 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:58:30 +0100 Subject: Provide SFD files for Unikurd Web In-Reply-To: <1606346315.35421223888079665.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <1606346315.35421223888079665.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20810130558i58a92826p4bb26a09387670f8@mail.gmail.com> 2008/10/13 Michal Nowak : > > Could you please provide SFD files on the web, from which are TTF fonts > generated, in case you use fontforge? > It would be helpful to have them when creating package for Fedora. Its also a requirement of GPLv3 :) From behdad at behdad.org Wed Oct 15 19:10:23 2008 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:10:23 -0400 Subject: Fontconfig rules installation guidelines change proposal In-Reply-To: <1223820245.9402.18.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1223820245.9402.18.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <48F6401F.3040301@behdad.org> Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Hi all, > > I've queued the following small guideline change proposal for FPC > consideration: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correction_(fontconfig) > > Please add comments, reactions and corrections in the wiki. Hi Nicolas, I like the direction of it. The idea of having separate conf.avail and conf.d is that sysadmins can symlink/unlink entries into conf.d to enable/disable configuration for their system. This would only work if upgrading fontconfig/fonts rpms does not reinstate the unlinked symlink. However, last time I checked this was not working correctly. Can you check this first? Thanks, behdad > Regards, From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Oct 15 20:34:16 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:34:16 +0200 Subject: Fontconfig rules installation guidelines change proposal In-Reply-To: <48F6401F.3040301@behdad.org> References: <1223820245.9402.18.camel@arekh.okg> <48F6401F.3040301@behdad.org> Message-ID: <1224102856.4844.12.camel@arekh.okg> Le mercredi 15 octobre 2008 ? 15:10 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : conf.avail and conf.dyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy > Hi Nicolas, Hi Behdad, Thank you for reviewing it, > I like the direction of it. > > The idea of having separate conf.avail and conf.d is that sysadmins can > symlink/unlink entries into conf.d to enable/disable configuration for their > system. This would only work if upgrading fontconfig/fonts rpms does not > reinstate the unlinked symlink. However, last time I checked this was not > working correctly. Can you check this first? I didn't write it in the wiki, but as far as I understand rpm it is not possible to tell it "if this file/symlink does not exist do not install it". So this bit of conf.avail/conf.d design will never work on rpm systems. And even if it worked, what you'd actually need would be "if this file does not exist and was installed by a previous rpm" to handle initial deployment. Which starts to be real hairy. (more generally treating absence of an item as disabling this item is a broken computer pattern IMHO.) However (someone please check this) it's probably possible to disable an entry permanently by creating a symlink with the same name pointing somewhere else (how does fontconfig reacts to /dev/null symlinks or symlinks pointing to empty files)? So having a repository of pre-deployed config snippets is fine with me. Also (and this bit is traced on the wiki) as I understand the FHS /etc/.../conf.avail is a complete no-go and should be moved to /usr/share/something if we want to be clean. And that before /etc/.../conf.avail is duplicated in many packages. -- 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 behdad at behdad.org Wed Oct 15 20:39:11 2008 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:39:11 -0400 Subject: Fontconfig rules installation guidelines change proposal In-Reply-To: <1224102856.4844.12.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1223820245.9402.18.camel@arekh.okg> <48F6401F.3040301@behdad.org> <1224102856.4844.12.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <48F654EF.5000505@behdad.org> Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le mercredi 15 octobre 2008 ? 15:10 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : > >> Hi Nicolas, > > Hi Behdad, > > Thank you for reviewing it, > >> I like the direction of it. >> >> The idea of having separate conf.avail and conf.d is that sysadmins can >> symlink/unlink entries into conf.d to enable/disable configuration for their >> system. This would only work if upgrading fontconfig/fonts rpms does not >> reinstate the unlinked symlink. However, last time I checked this was not >> working correctly. Can you check this first? > > I didn't write it in the wiki, but as far as I understand rpm it is not > possible to tell it "if this file/symlink does not exist do not install > it". So this bit of conf.avail/conf.d design will never work on rpm > systems. And even if it worked, what you'd actually need would be "if > this file does not exist and was installed by a previous rpm" to handle > initial deployment. Which starts to be real hairy. Well, it is: don't include the symlink in the RPM but create it in %post, and only if no previous versions of the package were installed ($1 = 0 IIRC). > (more generally > treating absence of an item as disabling this item is a broken computer > pattern IMHO.) The alternative would be people editing the files to disable them. Not much more package-manager friendly. > However (someone please check this) it's probably possible to disable an > entry permanently by creating a symlink with the same name pointing > somewhere else This can be ok. If it works, we can document it. > (how does fontconfig reacts to /dev/null symlinks or > symlinks pointing to empty files)? Works fine. > So having a repository of > pre-deployed config snippets is fine with me. > > Also (and this bit is traced on the wiki) as I understand the > FHS /etc/.../conf.avail is a complete no-go and should be moved > to /usr/share/something if we want to be clean. And that > before /etc/.../conf.avail is duplicated in many packages. Really? Where does it talk about those kind of stuff? behdad From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Oct 16 07:39:56 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:39:56 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Fontconfig rules installation guidelines change proposal In-Reply-To: <48F654EF.5000505@behdad.org> References: <1223820245.9402.18.camel@arekh.okg> <48F6401F.3040301@behdad.org> <1224102856.4844.12.camel@arekh.okg> <48F654EF.5000505@behdad.org> Message-ID: <4122c5e09deac33103f3079265aedf3a.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mer 15 octobre 2008 22:39, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : > > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> Le mercredi 15 octobre 2008 ? 15:10 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : >>> The idea of having separate conf.avail and conf.d is that sysadmins >>> can >>> symlink/unlink entries into conf.d to enable/disable configuration >>> for their >>> system. This would only work if upgrading fontconfig/fonts rpms >>> does not >>> reinstate the unlinked symlink. However, last time I checked this >>> was not >>> working correctly. Can you check this first? >> >> I didn't write it in the wiki, but as far as I understand rpm it is >> not >> possible to tell it "if this file/symlink does not exist do not >> install >> it". So this bit of conf.avail/conf.d design will never work on rpm >> systems. And even if it worked, what you'd actually need would be >> "if >> this file does not exist and was installed by a previous rpm" to >> handle >> initial deployment. Which starts to be real hairy. > > Well, it is: don't include the symlink in the RPM but create it in > %post, and > only if no previous versions of the package were installed ($1 = 0 > IIRC). Yurk. How safe is it WRT package renames? Because we've been renaming font packages a lot in the past (and I plan another mass rename for F11, hopefully the last one but I wouldn't bet anything I care about on it). Really this is being too clever for your own good IMHO. >> However (someone please check this) it's probably possible to >> disable an >> entry permanently by creating a symlink with the same name pointing >> somewhere else > > This can be ok. If it works, we can document it. >> Also (and this bit is traced on the wiki) as I understand the >> FHS /etc/.../conf.avail is a complete no-go and should be moved >> to /usr/share/something if we want to be clean. And that >> before /etc/.../conf.avail is duplicated in many packages. > > Really? Where does it talk about those kind of stuff? In conf.avail files are not really user-editable config files (in fact you don't use config(noreplace) so any package update will stomp on user modifications). They're more static configuration blocks users can not change but only activate/desactivate in conf.d via symlinks, and as such they match the "read-only architecture independent data files" definition of /usr/share. That rpmlint complains of %config files without noreplace in /etc is a pretty strong hint those files are misplaced. In fact one can wonder what's good is there %config-ing them at all. IIRC there was a pretty long thread on the subject in fedora-devel in the last months, but I don't have the time to pull it from archives. -- Nicolas Mailhot From duffy at fedoraproject.org Fri Oct 17 14:45:45 2008 From: duffy at fedoraproject.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:45:45 -0400 Subject: wishlist font: Rufscript - some wiki issues? Message-ID: <48F8A519.5000702@fedoraproject.org> Hey folks, I filled out a wishlist page for Rufscript [1] but it doesn't seem to be showing up on the fonts wishlist category page [2] even though I know i added that category page to the bottom of the Rufscript fonts page. Any ideas on what's going on? Any help/ideas are appreciated! :) ~m [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rufscript_fonts [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Font_wishlist From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Oct 17 15:23:42 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:23:42 +0200 (CEST) Subject: wishlist font: Rufscript - some wiki issues? In-Reply-To: <48F8A519.5000702@fedoraproject.org> References: <48F8A519.5000702@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: Le Ven 17 octobre 2008 16:45, M?ir?n Duffy a ?crit : > > Hey folks, Hi M?ir?n, Good to see you working on the wishlist again; > I filled out a wishlist page for Rufscript [1] but it > doesn't seem to be showing up on the fonts wishlist category > page [2] even though I know i added that category page to > the bottom of the Rufscript fonts page. > > Any ideas on what's going on? Any help/ideas are > appreciated! :) The problem is you've used [[:Category:Font wishlist]] instead of [[Category:Font wishlist]]. The : desactivates category processing so you can display the associated code in wiki documentation. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Oct 17 20:33:37 2008 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 02:03:37 +0530 Subject: wishlist font: Rufscript - some wiki issues? In-Reply-To: <48F8A519.5000702@fedoraproject.org> References: <48F8A519.5000702@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <48F8F6A1.40907@fedoraproject.org> M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > Hey folks, > > I filled out a wishlist page for Rufscript > > [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rufscript_fonts Filed a review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467507 A review would be appreciated. Thanks. Rahul From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Oct 26 19:47:03 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:47:03 +0100 Subject: [LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report Message-ID: <1225050423.4173.7.camel@arekh.okg> Hi all, I haven't been too active on the SIG lately for lack of free time. However others (who rock) have been busy working on fonts packages, so here is a long delayed status update that will try to clear the backlog: ?? General status ? We have 56 entries in the wishlist. Even counting entries the packager forgot to recategorize (grrr) I think the wishlist is still growing faster than we package fonts. More active packagers are obviously needed. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Font_wishlist ? We have 58 entries in the packaged list. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Packaged_fonts It is still nicely growing, and Fedora 9 level reviews like this one are already obsolete http://www.advogato.org/person/yosch/diary.html?start=4 ? We've created 55 new packages since the start of the cycle (a wishlist entry can translate in several packages). That's pretty awesome and way past the 32 packages mark of the last report (and way past previous Fedora cycle accomplishments). Special kuddos to Dennis Jang for packaging the huge UN Korean font set (though he needs to update his wiki pages). Others didn't attain the level of awesomeness of Dennis but still did pretty well. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_inclusion_history ?? Package status ??? Packaged, with bugs still open: ? sportrop-fonts, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456345 ? asana-math-fonts, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455153 ? icelandic-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445261 ? Packagers please close your review bugs when the packaging is finished. ??? Packaged, but not referenced in Fedora 10 comps ? myanmar3-unicode-fonts That was short :) most packagers seem to apply http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Comps_fonts_rules without prodding on my part. Good job and please fix this one. ??? Packaged, with wiki page not finalized or missing ? thibault-fonts-essays1743, ? thibault-fonts-isabella, ? thibault-fonts-rockets, ? thibault-fonts-staypuft, ? un-fonts, ? un-extra-fonts, ? icelandic-fonts ? smc-fonts ? darkgarden-fonts ? sportrop-fonts ? myanmar3-unicode-fonts ? Please make sure each font package has a completed wiki page (Packaged fonts category) that can be used by the docs team in release notes and other documents ??? Reviewed fonts waiting for packager action ? bitstream-vera-fonts (old FE-MERGE ticket, needs someone to help Behdad co-maintain the package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225618 ? sil-gentium-basic-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527 ? hiran-perizia-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709 ? cf-bonveno-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457955 ? arabeyes-thabit-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139 ? arabeyes-mothana-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462711 ? alee-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466193 ? hiran-rufscript-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467507 ? You know what you need to do ??? Approved fonts not pushed yet ? unikurd-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457281 ??? Waiting for a reviewer ? heuristica-fonts (just cleared by FE-LEGAL) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452317 ? oldstandard-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947 (not an easy font to package and not baked yet IMHO. I put some comments in the bug but didn't start formal review, so this one is still open) ? We need some reviewers. I can't review every single font package out there (especially since I'm not allowed to review my own). In other news more interesting material was added to the SIG wiki and a guideline change on fontconfig file location is still proceeding. And the big F11 package renaming is still planned, I just don't have the energy left to write about it. I hope you liked this report. It took a lot of work to be written. If you want some changes in the next edition, just ping me. 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 Oct 26 20:29:58 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:29:58 +0100 Subject: conf.avail, rpmlint and the FHS Message-ID: <1225052998.4417.22.camel@arekh.okg> Hi all, When conf.avail was introduced in fontconfig we at Fedora mostly ignored it and let font packages install their fontconfig rules directly in conf.d http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsSpecTemplate (the exception being the fontconfig package itself who perforce followed the new conventions). Recent events made me revisit this point and try to heal the rift between fontconfig and font packages by following common conventions. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correction_(fontconfig) In the course of the examination of this guideline change proposal, however, it was identified that conf.avail as currently designed causes our rpmlint package sanity check tool to emit errors. Those errors were ok for Behdad to ignore, but really not ok for general packaging guidelines we want to put into newbie packager hands. The core reason are that since we deploy policy through those fontconfig files, we absolutely do not want users to change them (they're free to un-reference the files in conf.d, or write their own fontconfig rules in different files, but we instruct rpm to stomp on old versions of our files on updates). Since we mark those files as non-modifiable (%config and not %config(noreplace) in rpm speak) rpmlint considers them as data, not configuration, and complains of their location under /etc. After thinking a bit about it I feel rpmlint is right ? since we don't let users modify our fontconfig files they're not dynamic configuration, just static data users can choose to activate or not. We could of course add an exception in rpmlint just for conf.avail, but I'd rather have fontconfig be fixed to follow more closely the FHS. Exceptions ultimately pile on till you have a lot of cruft to clean up which is not my definition of fun. Can conf.avail and its contents be moved in /usr/share/something in the next version of fontconfig? See also: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021 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 Oct 26 21:19:44 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:19:44 +0100 Subject: [LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report In-Reply-To: <1225050423.4173.7.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1225050423.4173.7.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1225055984.5093.1.camel@arekh.okg> Le dimanche 26 octobre 2008 ? 20:47 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > ? We have 56 entries in the wishlist. Actually we have 57 since Behdad requested FersiWeb fonts and no one has worked on it so far http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Farsiweb_fonts 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 duffy at fedoraproject.org Fri Oct 31 21:15:38 2008 From: duffy at fedoraproject.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=ED=ADn_Duffy?=) Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:15:38 -0400 Subject: Beteckna fonts - new wishlist font Message-ID: <490B757A.9010602@fedoraproject.org> Just filed a new wishlist font: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Beteckna_fonts I think for package cat's sake, surely a packager will step up? :) http://mihmo.livejournal.com/64301.html ~m