From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jan 2 11:18:40 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:18:40 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: fontpackages template warnings In-Reply-To: <200901012109.21924.ville.skytta@iki.fi> References: <20081230142910.GA29904@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> <9d8b98149e12fc36d76c5a2cc35b1d61.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <937de2565ad43ad918ed7c6e1f296ee8.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <200901012109.21924.ville.skytta@iki.fi> Message-ID: <1230895120.26738.14.camel@arekh.okg> Le jeudi 01 janvier 2009 ? 21:09 +0200, Ville Skytt? a ?crit : > On Tuesday 30 December 2008, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > [...] Hi > Sorry for hijacking the thread for something quite unrelated, np > but for me > the "fontpackages" package name sounds pretty weird. I think similar > packages are usually called foo-common; was "fonts-common" ever considered? I rather like the way it expands in nice self-explanatory fontpackages-filesystem and fontpackages-devel binary packages. It has some consistency with fontconfig (which felt strange at first when it was introduced too). Also, I'd rather avoid any name with the fonts- or -fonts affix as those denote past and present font packages and this package has not fonts at all inside it. Anyway, the project was originally named rpmfonts, and then during review people asked for a name change (various abandonned proposals: fonts-rpm, fonts, etc). So it was already renamed once. Since the package name translates in a fedorahosted project name, a FAS group name, is used in the templates which have already been applied to more than 30 packages, is used in wiki documentation, I'm not thrilled at the idea of doing another renaming. But I will do it if people want to and someone finds an awesome new name. I'm not convinced fonts-common is such a name :p Happy new year, -- 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 Fri Jan 2 12:05:21 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:05:21 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: fontpackages template warnings In-Reply-To: <20081231100007.GA4926@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> References: <20081230142910.GA29904@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> <9d8b98149e12fc36d76c5a2cc35b1d61.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <937de2565ad43ad918ed7c6e1f296ee8.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <20081231100007.GA4926@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> Message-ID: <1230897921.26738.17.camel@arekh.okg> > > > Le Mar 30 d?cembre 2008 15:29, Sarantis Paskalis a ?crit : > > >> I am converting my font packages to the new guidelines and hit some > > >> rpmlint warnings that appear to be template related. Anyway I've queued the following FPC-side so they can rule one way or the other. I'll just apply whatever they decide. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Absolute_symlinks_in_fonts_templates_(2009-01-02) 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 Jan 4 10:58:14 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 11:58:14 +0100 Subject: First font-package In-Reply-To: <20081231175614.GA20726@killefiz> References: <20081231175614.GA20726@killefiz> Message-ID: <1231066694.25340.3.camel@arekh.okg> Le mercredi 31 d?cembre 2008 ? 18:56 +0100, Sven Lankes a ?crit : > Hi, Hi Sven > 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. Thank you for working on a new font package (on the eve of a new year even). I've added some answers to your questions in the review request. Do not hesitate to ask again if you have other 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 nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro Mon Jan 5 11:11:15 2009 From: nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro (Nicu Buculei) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:11:15 +0200 Subject: [OpenFontLibrary] comic fonts :) In-Reply-To: <4bdc7d624900d12262781bbacb546aa1.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> References: <733f2c730812300754i5f93c35u141efb7d4f74a625@mail.gmail.com> <1b6e7c770812300902h784e2d65pb8557da33fae3931@mail.gmail.com> <4bdc7d624900d12262781bbacb546aa1.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4961EAD3.4090001@nicubunu.ro> Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le Mar 30 d?cembre 2008 18:02, H a ?crit : >> 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. Now I feel bad about this... I should sit down one day and make sure rufscript has all the correct diacritics for my native language... is a trivial task, only copying a few commas below some letters. Will do it. -- nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com Cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/ Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro From nicolas_spalinger at sil.org Mon Jan 5 11:29:09 2009 From: nicolas_spalinger at sil.org (Nicolas Spalinger) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:29:09 +0100 Subject: [OpenFontLibrary] comic fonts :) In-Reply-To: <4bdc7d624900d12262781bbacb546aa1.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> References: <733f2c730812300754i5f93c35u141efb7d4f74a625@mail.gmail.com> <1b6e7c770812300902h784e2d65pb8557da33fae3931@mail.gmail.com> <4bdc7d624900d12262781bbacb546aa1.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4961EF05.3080704@sil.org> Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > 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. Also, if you haven't seen it already on planet GNOME, here's another decorative handwriting font freshly designed and released with a wider range of diacritics and the interrobang (!): http://blogs.gnome.org/tthurman/2008/12/31/riordonfancy-v3/ Good to see the growing open alternatives to MS Bob's bubble font. -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer Debian/Ubuntu font teams http://planet.open-fonts.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jan 9 21:05:13 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:05:13 +0100 Subject: Madan Puraskar Pustakalaya font licensing Message-ID: <1231535113.3965.13.camel@arekh.okg> Dear sirs, I've just noticed your Nepali fonts on http://madanpuraskar.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=19&Itemid=63 The Fedora Linux project, of which I am a community contributor, would very much like to generalise support for all world languages in our free Linux OS and its derivatives (from commercial Red Hat Entreprise Linux to charity One Laptop Per Child). That includes Nepali. If your intention is also to further Nepali support, we'd be very happy to help you spread your fonts wide. However, we are very careful about not misappropriating other people's work, and only distribute material which licensing is clear and compatible with our distribution model. Please add some licensing information to your fonts so we can check if that's the case here (the simplest system is to publish a .txt file stating the license next to the font files, for example in the same zip archive; adding the same information to the font metadata is also good but a .txt file is simpler on users). If you've reused any other font when creating yours (for example, to cover the latin unicode blocks) please document it too (the usual way is through a fontlog .txt file). Our licensing constrains are explained here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts We've found out that the OFL or the GPL with the FSF font exception are the best licenses to use with fonts currently. They're the most clear to users, protect authors solidly, and do not have the awkward side-effects of other licences. If investigation shows our distribution models are incompatible, we'll respect your decision, abandon the idea of integrating your fonts and not bother you anymore. Sincerely, -- Nicolas Mailhot Fedora Fonts Special Interest Group -------------- 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 Jan 11 15:12:42 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:12:42 +0100 Subject: New font packaging guidelines In-Reply-To: <1229789615.16655.28.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1229789615.16655.28.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1231686762.16307.2.camel@arekh.okg> Dear all, To help people deal with the new fonts guidelines, I've added the following FAQ to the wiki: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_other_packages_(FAQ) Feel free to complete it (or request additions) 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 Wed Jan 14 11:21:27 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:21:27 +0100 (CET) Subject: TeX font package naming guidelines In-Reply-To: <20090114110957.GA10071@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> References: <20090114110957.GA10071@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> Message-ID: <71c8744e8aba3edaf18fd1f6678389a1.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> CC-ing a few more TEX folks Le Mer 14 janvier 2009 12:09, Sarantis Paskalis a ?crit : > > Hello, > > Recently an effort has begun to the system infrastructure in fedora > aware of each font shipped, and this shipment explicit mostly through > subpackages > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21) > > Two of my packages are fonts primarily intended for LaTeX > (tetex-font-kerkis and tetex-font-cm-lgc). The guidelines suggest > splitting the package in the Type 1 font files and TeX-support files. > > The font-related part is mostly sorted out (see > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477461 ) > > The TeX-related part consists of files (.sty, .tfm, .ovf, etc) to > support the use of these fonts in LaTeX. > > Now, the draft for font naming guidelines suggests the srpm name to > changed from tetex-font-cm-lgc to ctan-cm-lgc-fonts (to which I > agree). > > The reason for this email is the last line in the proposed table, > where > the TeX related subpackage is to be named ctan-cm-lgc-tex. I think > this > is inconsistent with the rest of the TeX world in fedora and would > like > some feedback as to what name would be preferable. > > My preference would be to put tex as a prefix and drop ctan as in > tex-cm-lgc as it is rather obvious for TeX-related stuff; afterall we > don't have many perl-cpan-perlmodule packages) > > What do other TeX packagers prefer? > > P.S. The only hint I found at existing guidelines is that the prefix > tex- is preferable > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28TeX.29 > > -- Sarantis -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jan 14 11:26:29 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:26:29 +0100 (CET) Subject: TeX font package naming guidelines In-Reply-To: <71c8744e8aba3edaf18fd1f6678389a1.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> References: <20090114110957.GA10071@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> <71c8744e8aba3edaf18fd1f6678389a1.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Message-ID: Le Mer 14 janvier 2009 12:21, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > > CC-ing a few more TEX folks > > Le Mer 14 janvier 2009 12:09, Sarantis Paskalis a ?crit : >> >> Now, the draft for font naming guidelines suggests the srpm name to >> changed from tetex-font-cm-lgc to ctan-cm-lgc-fonts (to which I >> agree). Just to be clear, the current draft after changes requested by FPC is http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_(2009-01-13) -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jan 15 00:54:37 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:54:37 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Draft vote on Font Package Naming] Message-ID: <1231980877.24058.20.camel@arekh.okg> Anyway, to get the ball rolling: 1. I've pushed an updated fontpackages release on rawhide that takes into account FPC naming preferences 2. Packages with only a single font family inside should be unaffected by this change (they still build the same) 3. Packages with multiple font families inside need to be changed slightly to the new spec template. Basicaly a subpackage for foo font family was declared before with %package foo ... %description foo And need to use now %package -n %{fontname}-foo-fonts ... Obsoletes: %{name}-foo < thisversion-thisrelease %description -n %{fontname}-foo-fonts The rest of the spec is completely unchanged, the macros behaviours where modified to take the new naming conventions into account (management of the transition for packages which have deps on needs to be worked out, but that should mainly concern dejavu only, and I've not touched it yet) 4. Non-font srpms with fonts subpackages that used %package fonts-foo ... %description fonts-foo ... %_font_pkg -n fonts-foo ... Need to be changed to %package foo-fonts ... %description foo-fonts ... %_font_pkg -n foo ... This stuff is only lightly tested in rawhide which is why I'm not going to push it to stable releases now ; if you want to play with it on non-rawhide systems install the rawhide fontpackages rpms on them. This is mainly to provide people a way to test by themselves what FPC requirements means instead of flooding the lists with mails. -- 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 Thu Jan 15 09:09:01 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:09:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Draft vote on Font Package Naming In-Reply-To: <2143555607.1297781231977217381.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int. phx2.redhat.com> References: <2143555607.1297781231977217381.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: Le Jeu 15 janvier 2009 00:53, Jens Petersen a ?crit : > > ----- "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" wrote: >> The draft is available here: >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_% >> 282009-01-13%29 > > Sorry but this is not a good idea IMO. BTW I think Jens objects strongly because he did not see some of the horrific naming changes FPC proposed first, which would have resulted in mass srpm renames and totally un-obvious srpm name -> rpm name mappings. (and we use srpm names to reference packages in all our infra tools) The current FPC-approved draft is a lot saner and does not require too much implementing work I think: 1. it does not change existing font srpm names at all, except for - the handful of packages that didn't respect strictly the previous semi-official naming guidelines (I write semi-official because even though no explicit font naming guideline was written down a naming style was suggested in official font spec templates) - the handfuls of packages which didn't use foundryname prefixes when they could (and we'd planned to make them change them anyway since having some packages with this prefix and others without was confusing to users and packagers) 2. does change font subpackage names slightly for font subpackages of font srpms. I've pushed a new fontpackages-* rpm set (templates and macros) to rawhide that minimizes the changes needed to existing font specs to adapt to FPC naming (only %package and %description lines) Of course packagers will still have to add Obsoletes manually, plus some sort of Provides transition for the few font packages that other packages depend on Actual subpackage content and internal file layout didn't change. 3. Clarifies the font subpackage naming for font subpackages of non-font srpms. Well since there was no clear convention before, and inconsistent naming practices, any clear naming guideline was going to require changes in most packages. I've adapted the macros to force the FPC naming rules in that case. WARNING 2. and 3. mean that trying to rebuild a srpm with font subpackages in rawhide without doing the small spec changes entailed by the new naming rules adopted by As a test I've rebuilt a few font packages on my system, and changed bitstream vera in rawhide, to verify it works in koji (it does), and to provide people an example of what the renaming entails in practice for a non-trivial font package. Sincerely, -- Nicolas Mailhot From paskalis at di.uoa.gr Mon Jan 19 11:36:00 2009 From: paskalis at di.uoa.gr (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 13:36:00 +0200 Subject: Renaming reviews Message-ID: <20090119113600.GA25741@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> Hi, I have two packages (tetex-font-cm-lgc and tetex-font-kerkis) that need renaming among other changes to fit in the new font order. Although there is no official guideline on renaming yet, discussions on fedora-devel imply that a re-review of the package needs to be done [1]. So I opened up two review requests for a re-review of the packages. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480589 for ctan-cm-lgc-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480591 for ctan-kerkis-fonts If anyone else faces the same situation, I would be glad to swap reviews. Thanks, -- Sarantis [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/93869 From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jan 21 06:46:21 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:46:21 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: [Guidelines Change] Changes to the Packaging Guidelines] Message-ID: <1232520381.17788.0.camel@arekh.okg> -------- Message transf?r? -------- De: Tom "spot" Callaway ?: fedora-devel-announce Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:16:09 -0500 As usual, the Fedora Packaging Committee has been busy adding and amending the Fedora Packaging Guidelines. Specifically: The Packaging Guidelines describing desktop-file-install have been changed. Specifically, new packages no longer need to set "vendor" (existing packages must keep using "vendor" for the lifetime of that package). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage The Packaging Guidelines have been changed to reflect the fact that Fedora packages must adhere to the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS), with the exception of libexecdir (as specified in the GNU Coding Standards) and /usr/target for cross-compilers. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#layout The Font Packaging Guidelines have been changed. There is a new section which covers Font Package Layout: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Package_layout_for_fonts In addition, there is a new set of Guidelines covering the naming of Font Packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Naming Also, there is a new set of Guidelines covering the technical implementation of Font Packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Technical_implementation The Eclipse Plugin Guidelines were updated to reflect Eclipse 3.4: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:EclipsePlugins The Ruby Guidelines were updated to better handle situations where a Ruby Gem includes an extension library written in C: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Ruby_Gem_with_extension_libraries_written_in_C These guidelines (and changes) were approved by the Fedora Packaging Committee (FPC) and ratified by FESCo. Many thanks to Andrew Overholt, Mamoru Tasaka, Nicolas Mailhot, and all of the members of the FPC and FESCo, for assisting in drafting, refining, and passing these guidelines. As a reminder: The Fedora Packaging Guidelines are living documents! If you find something missing, incorrect, or in need of revision, you can suggest a draft change. The procedure for this is documented here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee#GuidelineChangeProcedure Thanks, ~spot _______________________________________________ Fedora-devel-announce mailing list Fedora-devel-announce at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce -- 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 Wed Jan 21 10:47:38 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:47:38 +0100 (CET) Subject: rpms/mgopen-fonts/devel mgopen-fonts.spec,1.11,1.12 In-Reply-To: <20090121103254.E5F207012F@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> References: <20090121103254.E5F207012F@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Message-ID: Le Mer 21 janvier 2009 11:32, Sarantis Paskalis a ?crit : > > Author: sarantis > > Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/mgopen-fonts/devel > In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv25641 > > Modified Files: > mgopen-fonts.spec > Log Message: > - Fix typo in provides: fontpackages-filesystem > - Add provides mgopen-fonts to the -compat subpackage. Please don't add that provides or you'll never be able to get rid of the compat subpackage. (or at least tell clearly to the packagers that have an mgopen-fonts dep it will go away before F11 Beta like I stated for dejavu) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From paskalis at di.uoa.gr Wed Jan 21 13:46:00 2009 From: paskalis at di.uoa.gr (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:46:00 +0200 Subject: rpms/mgopen-fonts/devel mgopen-fonts.spec,1.11,1.12 In-Reply-To: References: <20090121103254.E5F207012F@cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20090121134600.GA32052@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> Resending to the list as well. On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:47:38AM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le Mer 21 janvier 2009 11:32, Sarantis Paskalis a ?crit : > > > > Author: sarantis > > > > Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/mgopen-fonts/devel > > In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv25641 > > > > Modified Files: > > mgopen-fonts.spec > > Log Message: > > - Fix typo in provides: fontpackages-filesystem > > - Add provides mgopen-fonts to the -compat subpackage. > > Please don't add that provides or you'll never be able to get rid of > the compat subpackage. > > (or at least tell clearly to the packagers that have an mgopen-fonts > dep it will go away before F11 Beta like I stated for dejavu) It broke one package (elisa) only, so I guess I could persuade the one packager to fix their package. Thanks, -- Sarantis From mnowak at redhat.com Wed Jan 21 23:24:09 2009 From: mnowak at redhat.com (Michal Nowak) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:24:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Unikurdweb.conf In-Reply-To: <1405050887.1007511232579497162.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1478316510.1008791232580249554.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Hi. As part of forcing my font packages to comply with F11 font rules I created fontconfig configuration file. I am far from being expert on fontconfig, be patient with me, please. According to my investigation in Glibc I found that the only supported (existing?) Kurdish-related locale is 'ku_TR' ('ku-tr' in fontconfig's dialect). >From comps I know that paktype-fonts and kacst-fonts can display Arabic-like scripts as well as Unikurd Web. So, I gave fontconfig a hint on possible replacement of Unikurd Web with paktype or kcacs. Someone have a look at the attachment, please, whether it makes sense, what's written there, or whether it is not missing anything important. [1] Thanks, Michal -- [1] I know my font can cover Farsi and others, where is supposed to be a fontconfig hint "When glyph was not found in current font, try to cherry pick the missing one from Unikurd Web"? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 65-unikurd-web-font.conf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1245 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jan 22 20:20:26 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:20:26 +0100 Subject: Unikurdweb.conf In-Reply-To: <1478316510.1008791232580249554.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <1478316510.1008791232580249554.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1232655626.24435.26.camel@arekh.okg> Le mercredi 21 janvier 2009 ? 18:24 -0500, Michal Nowak a ?crit : > Hi. Hi, > As part of forcing my font packages to comply with F11 font > rules I created fontconfig configuration file. (note that the fontconfig part is optional, though a well-written font-config ruleset is much better than none at all) > I am far from being expert on fontconfig, be patient with me, > please. I see I'll have to explain the fontconfig model here. In traditional font systems, apps request a font name and style, and it is either available, and things works, or it's not, and things fail (for apps still using the legacy core X11 font system fail = crash). This is usually mitigated by the possibility to declare aliases, so you can fake one font with another (but if the app requests something else than your alias, or your alias points to a missing font, or this font does not have the glyphs needed to render your text, still failure). In the fontconfig model, if an app demands a font that does not exist, or that is missing a glyph, fontconfig will automatically substitute another font or complete the font from glyphs form other fonts (unless there is no font *at all* with the necessary glyph on system). So the purpose of our fontconfig files is not to make fontconfig perform substitutions, it is to help fontconfig select the right font when doing so (bear in mind that all other fonts on system that include the same glyph will be competing with your font during this stage). An app can ask for an actual font name or a "fake" font name such as sans, serif, monospace, cursive, fantasy (the 5 W3C CSS aliases). If it's a real font name and the font is present on-system all is yummy. If it's a real font name, and the font is not present on-system, and there is no specific rule telling fontconfig "try this other font when asked for the first one" fontconfig will just go through the fonts declared as part of the fake 'sans' family till it finds one that is both available and contains the needed glyphs. If it's a css name, fontconfig will walk though its associated priority list. So, to help fontconfig you need: 1. to declare to it what fonts you can substitute for (usually when your font and those other fonts share the same origin). You don't need to do it for unrelated fonts that only share the same unicode coverage, fontconfig will figure this out by itself (thus, unless your font and paktype or kcacs share the same design, you should not declare substitution rules for them just because they're all arabic fonts) 2. insert your font in the CSS family it belongs to, after better fonts and before worse fonts 3. tell fontconfig it should complete your font from glyphs taken from this family in priority. Which is all pretty simple to understand. The special case that sucks big time is when an unicode block is used by different locales, and they disagree on the best way to draw it. In that case you need to push your font first but *only* for the locales it's appropriate for. Thus, you need to 1. declare unikurd in the right css family at the right priority http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips 2. tell fontconfig it should complete unikurd from this css family in priority 3. and since arabic is one of the unicode blocks which is drawn differently in some part of the world, add a "I'm best for foo kurd locale" override to it Thanksfuly Behdad has a vested interest in making sure you won't mess Persian too much so he'll likely help and review your fontconfig file. 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 Sat Jan 24 14:54:38 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:54:38 +0100 Subject: Claiming ownership of orphaned packages In-Reply-To: <2d319b780901240410s2a30eb32y73060dee5089a1ba@mail.gmail.com> References: <2d319b780901240410s2a30eb32y73060dee5089a1ba@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1232808878.14502.4.camel@arekh.okg> Le samedi 24 janvier 2009 ? 13:10 +0100, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) a ?crit : > Hi, Hi, > This is my first message on this list :) > > I'm writing to claim ownership of two orphaned packages that are > needed by the Fedora OLPC project : > - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/abyssinica-fonts > - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/nafees-web-naskh-fonts Do not hesitate to discuss any problem you encounter on the fedora-fonts-list ;) -- 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 Sat Jan 24 21:16:15 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:16:15 +0100 Subject: [LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report Message-ID: <1232831775.24232.131.camel@arekh.okg> Hi all, Since Fedora 11 Alpha is quickly approaching, here is a much-delayed edition of the fonts SIG irregular status report. I should probably have done one for Fedora 10 release, but (silly me) expected then that the new font packaging guidelines would be adopted quickly. After all, they only reworded existing rules and added material already presented and discussed on the fonts and devel lists. Of course various instances decided to celebrate F10 by taking a break, then there was some bike-shedding, then we had the Christmas vacations, then FUDCON and more bike-shedding. Live and learn. At least after being hammered to death the result is clear and clean. Anyway, to the report. ??? New fonts packaging guidelines ??? After much anguish and unexpected developments FPC and FESCO approved the complete set of fonts packaging changes that we had submitted. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-announce/2009-January/msg00007.html The end result is: ? a completed and clarified policy page http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy ? two new packaging templates http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts ? and a helper package with rpm macros, documentation, plus fontconfig and spec templates http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package ??? Distribution-wide font auditing and repackaging ??? Some innocent repoqueries revealed a distressing number of source packages (>130) that made us ship fonts while completely ignoring our previous fonts packaging guidelines and existing licensing rules. So applying new font guidelines twists quickly turned into distribution-wide operation. ? Its advancement is now tracked in: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=477044 ? A (long) FAQ was published to help packagers with no fonts experience: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ) ? To make sure documentation, QA and other groups are aware and help implement the changes they've been proposed as a Fedora 11 feature: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Repackaging_of_Fedora_fonts ??? Wishlist status ??? Our wishlist stood at 56 entries for last report. It has now reached the 76 entries watermark. The current fonts packagers are clearly unable to cope with Fedora demands, fresh blood is needed before it moves into 3-digits land. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Font_wishlist At the same time the respected lwn.net is running a front page article listing more indispensable free or open fonts, some of them being neither in Fedora nor in our wishlist yet. http://lwn.net/Articles/315872/ (subscription required right now, will go free in less than a week) Volunteers to package those or at least add them to our wishlist would be welcome. The free and open font landscape is really moving now, and the quality and breadth of its font offerings is now a distribution differentiator. ??? Review status ??? At this time there are no un-reviewed font packages in Fedora bugzilla. However, several reviews have been open for quite a long time with their requesters not acting on review comments. Please do respond to review comments. Reviewing packages is tedious ungrateful work and getting no response after one is demotivating. ??? New packages ??? Ignoring renamings ctan-musixtex-fonts, dustin-dustismo-roman-fonts, dustin-dustismo-sans-fonts, hanazono-fonts, google-droid-sans-fonts, google-droid-sans-mono-font, google-droid-serif-fonts, serafettin-cartoon-fonts, and unikurd-web-font are now available in the repository. The most user-visible of those are probably the Droid fonts, but Dustimo had been waited for a long time. Several other fonts previously hidden deep inside apps have now been exposed as part of the ongoing F11 auditing and repackaging. The complete set of changes is documented as usual: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_inclusion_history Several new packagers worked on those and on other packages not pushed yet and I want to thank them publicly for their contribution to a better Fedora. ??? Web font surveys ??? Fedora 10 shipped with an openjdk plugin that should be complete enough to run web font surveys. There is no reason left for Fedora users not to participate in them, and help web designers select fonts that work well with Fedora browsers. Please take the time to run those: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Linux_fonts_on_the_web:_CSS_and_font_surveys ??? Better fonts whiteboard ??? The desktop team has added a whiteboard page to the wiki to help identify the software changes needed to improve Fedora fonts and text handling. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop/Whiteboards/BetterFonts Please contribute comments and complements to this page to help Fedora get better. ??? Font autoinstallation ??? Rumors on irc are that the feature is advancing fast. Hopefully we'll have finished cleaning up our font packages before they need to be rebuild to add auto-install metadata. Automating this operation requires clean packages free of historic cruft. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AutomaticFontInstallation And that's all for this issue, thank you for reading it to its end. 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 evets25 at gmail.com Mon Jan 26 15:04:39 2009 From: evets25 at gmail.com (Stephen Carter) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:04:39 -0500 Subject: Fedora-fonts-list Digest, Vol 16, Issue 14 In-Reply-To: <20090125170032.1124E619603@hormel.redhat.com> References: <20090125170032.1124E619603@hormel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <497DD107.1030709@gmail.com> > Our wishlist stood at 56 entries for last report. It has now reached the > 76 entries watermark. The current fonts packagers are clearly unable to > cope with Fedora demands, fresh blood is needed before it moves into > 3-digits land. Well then in that case, you may be happy to hear that you have a new fonts packager: me. ^.^ My name is Stephen, and I'm a student in the LUX program at Seneca College in Toronto Canada, studying Linux. For a class project, I will be packaging up as many fonts as I can, and (hopefully) getting them into Fedora. I'm a little late in getting into contact with the community, but hey, better late than never! To start off, I've already got one font packaged up and ready for review (Epigrafica - I had a couple others, but I see they're no longer on the wishlist), but I'm not quite sure where to go from here. I'd like to get these started into the review process, but I've never done that before so... yeah, what do I do next? I'm mostly clear on the technical details of making the packages, but I'm unfamiliar with the whole process for getting the package approved and whatnot. If someone could point me in the next direction, that would be great! Also, I'm on IRC a lot, is there an IRC channel where I could ask questions specifically related to fonts-packaging? You can reach me at or, reply to this address. Stephen From sven at lank.es Mon Jan 26 15:19:19 2009 From: sven at lank.es (Sven Lankes) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:19:19 +0100 Subject: Fedora-fonts-list Digest, Vol 16, Issue 14 In-Reply-To: <497DD107.1030709@gmail.com> References: <20090125170032.1124E619603@hormel.redhat.com> <497DD107.1030709@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090126151919.GQ2796@killefiz> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:04:39AM -0500, Stephen Carter wrote: > Well then in that case, you may be happy to hear that you have a new > fonts packager: me. ^.^ Welcome > My name is Stephen, and I'm a student in the LUX program at Seneca > College in Toronto Canada, studying Linux. For a class project, I will > be packaging up as many fonts as I can, and (hopefully) getting them > into Fedora. I'm a little late in getting into contact with the > community, but hey, better late than never! To start off, I've already > got one font packaged up and ready for review (Epigrafica - I had a > couple others, but I see they're no longer on the wishlist), but I'm not > quite sure where to go from here. I'd like to get these started into the > review process, but I've never done that before so... yeah, what do I do > next? You need to create a fas-account, apply for the packager-group and create a package review request in bugzilla that includes the information that you need to be sponsored. A potential sponsor will probably want to see a litte more work done by you that shows that you've understood the fedora packaging principles - so doing a couple of 'pre-reviews' of packages (font or not) is probably a good idea. There are lots of details on how to join/help on the wiki - start here: http://fedoraproject.org/join-fedora > Also, I'm on IRC a lot, is there an IRC channel where I could ask > questions specifically related to fonts-packaging? ##fonts #fedora-devel both on the freenode irc-network. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: sven at lankes.net From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Jan 26 15:28:34 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:28:34 +0100 (CET) Subject: Fedora-fonts-list Digest, Vol 16, Issue 14 In-Reply-To: <497DD107.1030709@gmail.com> References: <20090125170032.1124E619603@hormel.redhat.com> <497DD107.1030709@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8917c5cd889d985a02029dbf8193d918.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Lun 26 janvier 2009 16:04, Stephen Carter a ?crit : > >> Our wishlist stood at 56 entries for last report. It has now reached >> the >> 76 entries watermark. The current fonts packagers are clearly unable >> to >> cope with Fedora demands, fresh blood is needed before it moves into >> 3-digits land. Hi Stephen, > Well then in that case, you may be happy to hear that you have a new > fonts packager: me. ^.^ /me cheers > My name is Stephen, and I'm a student in the LUX program at Seneca > College in Toronto Canada, studying Linux. For a class project, I will > be packaging up as many fonts as I can, and (hopefully) getting them > into Fedora. It will be very good to have someone that packages enough fonts to identify common problems and suggest ways to help font upstreams produce something easily packaged. > I'm mostly clear on the technical details of making the packages, but > I'm unfamiliar with the whole process for getting the package approved > and whatnot. If someone could point me in the next direction, that > would be great! The whole organisational part of getting a font in Fedora is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle > Also, I'm on IRC a lot, is there an IRC channel where I could ask > questions specifically related to fonts-packaging? The canonical channel dedicated to FLOSS fonts on IRC is ##fonts on irc.freenode.net (multi-distro). You can also ask general fedora packaging questions on #fedora-devel. We have packagers on many different timezones, so depending on the hour there may be no one awake, or people just rising, or people finishing their night. Don't give up if you have no answer in the same hour :p PS: You should also take the time to read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ) and skim the rest of the Fonts SIG wiki -- Nicolas Mailhot From evets25 at gmail.com Mon Jan 26 16:50:19 2009 From: evets25 at gmail.com (Stephen Carter) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:50:19 -0500 Subject: Fedora-fonts-list Digest, Vol 16, Issue 14 In-Reply-To: <8917c5cd889d985a02029dbf8193d918.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> References: <20090125170032.1124E619603@hormel.redhat.com> <497DD107.1030709@gmail.com> <8917c5cd889d985a02029dbf8193d918.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <497DE9CB.7090109@gmail.com> Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le Lun 26 janvier 2009 16:04, Stephen Carter a ?crit : >>> Our wishlist stood at 56 entries for last report. It has now reached >>> the >>> 76 entries watermark. The current fonts packagers are clearly unable >>> to >>> cope with Fedora demands, fresh blood is needed before it moves into >>> 3-digits land. > > Hi Stephen, > >> Well then in that case, you may be happy to hear that you have a new >> fonts packager: me. ^.^ > > /me cheers > >> My name is Stephen, and I'm a student in the LUX program at Seneca >> College in Toronto Canada, studying Linux. For a class project, I will >> be packaging up as many fonts as I can, and (hopefully) getting them >> into Fedora. > > It will be very good to have someone that packages enough fonts to > identify common problems and suggest ways to help font upstreams > produce something easily packaged. > >> I'm mostly clear on the technical details of making the packages, but >> I'm unfamiliar with the whole process for getting the package approved >> and whatnot. If someone could point me in the next direction, that >> would be great! > > The whole organisational part of getting a font in Fedora is described > here: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle > >> Also, I'm on IRC a lot, is there an IRC channel where I could ask >> questions specifically related to fonts-packaging? > > The canonical channel dedicated to FLOSS fonts on IRC is ##fonts on > irc.freenode.net (multi-distro). You can also ask general fedora > packaging questions on #fedora-devel. > > We have packagers on many different timezones, so depending on the > hour there may be no one awake, or people just rising, or people > finishing their night. Don't give up if you have no answer in the same > hour :p > > PS: You should also take the time to read > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ) > > and skim the rest of the Fonts SIG wiki > Thanks for the quick response, all those links do answer quite a few questions, but I have one more: What should I do with fonts on the wishlist that I am working on, or planning on working on? Do I just edit the wiki and remove them from the wishlist, move them to a different page, or what? Basically, what I want to know is, how do I let people know "Hey I'm working on this font!" So that someone else doesn't duplicate my work. Stephen From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Jan 26 18:16:25 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:16:25 +0100 Subject: Fedora-fonts-list Digest, Vol 16, Issue 14 In-Reply-To: <497DE9CB.7090109@gmail.com> References: <20090125170032.1124E619603@hormel.redhat.com> <497DD107.1030709@gmail.com> <8917c5cd889d985a02029dbf8193d918.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <497DE9CB.7090109@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1232993785.29839.3.camel@arekh.okg> Le lundi 26 janvier 2009 ? 11:50 -0500, Stephen Carter a ?crit : > Thanks for the quick response, all those links do answer quite a few > questions, but I have one more: What should I do with fonts on the > wishlist that I am working on, or planning on working on? Do I just edit > the wiki and remove them from the wishlist, move them to a different > page, or what? Basically, what I want to know is, how do I let people > know "Hey I'm working on this font!" So that someone else doesn't > duplicate my work. If you follow the procedure correctly the font will be removed from the wishlist at the time you submit your review request. I don't think it would be very smart to remove entries which have not even reached the review stage: people would remove them, move along before finishing up, and the work on the wishlist entry would be lost. You can however announce what you intend to work on this mailing list. -- 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 herlo1 at gmail.com Mon Jan 26 18:49:21 2009 From: herlo1 at gmail.com (Clint Savage) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:49:21 -0700 Subject: Packging Fonts at FAD SCaLE was fedora-fonts-list Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le lundi 26 janvier 2009 ? 11:50 -0500, Stephen Carter a ?crit : > >> Thanks for the quick response, all those links do answer quite a few >> questions, but I have one more: What should I do with fonts on the >> wishlist that I am working on, or planning on working on? Do I just edit >> the wiki and remove them from the wishlist, move them to a different >> page, or what? Basically, what I want to know is, how do I let people >> know "Hey I'm working on this font!" So that someone else doesn't >> duplicate my work. > > If you follow the procedure correctly the font will be removed from the > wishlist at the time you submit your review request. I don't think it > would be very smart to remove entries which have not even reached the > review stage: people would remove them, move along before finishing up, > and the work on the wishlist entry would be lost. > > You can however announce what you intend to work on this mailing list. > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > This seems like a reasonable place to announce that we're going to be doing a Fedora Activity at the Southern California Linux Expo (SCaLE) on Feb 20. As one of the major activities, I've planned to take several fonts and package them, and am looking for more people to come down and help with this effort. The goal I have is to package around 10-15 fonts in that day and at least get them in for review. If you would like to come and help, I would love to have you join us, the details of the FAD are available below: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Activity_Day_at_SCaLE_7x If you are unclear what a FAD is, have a read here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Activity_Day_-_FAD https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_organize_a_FAD Cheers, Clint From roozbeh at gmail.com Wed Jan 28 06:05:01 2009 From: roozbeh at gmail.com (Roozbeh Pournader) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:05:01 -0800 Subject: Legal issues with new font guidelines Message-ID: Hi. I was dutifully converting my font packages to the new guidelines, when I ran into a possible legal issue. For the sake of argument, let us assume a font licensed under OFL, called Mardana. The upstream tarball has two families inside, Mardana Sans and Mardana Serif, in TTF format. The text of the OFL license is not included in the TTFs themselves, but in a separate text file in the tarball. Actually, let's assume the TTFs themselves don't have any copyright or licensing metadata. According to the new font packaging guidelines, there would be three packages, mardana-fonts-common, mardana-serif-fonts, and mardana-sans-fonts. All documentation related files will be in *-common, and all the actual TTFs would be in *-sans-* and *-serif-*. So, someone finds about the fonts, wants to use them on Windows, searches for them, and finds our binary RPM for Mardana Sans, and downloads it. She then opens it with some tool and installs it on her machine. But that's a license violation by us: "2) Original or Modified Versions of the Font Software may be bundled, redistributed and/or sold with any software, provided that each copy contains the above copyright notice and this license. These can be included either as stand-alone text files, human-readable headers or in the appropriate machine-readable metadata fields within text or binary files as long as those fields can be easily viewed by the user." But we are not providing any copyright notice or license in our binary RPM, that is supposedly the "software" that that Font Software is bundled with. All we say, is two pointers: "OFL" in the RPM license tag, and "mardana-fonts-common" in the requires tag. Of course, if the user really wants to, she can investigate the binary RPM, and find pointers to the actual license, and go and find the license. But we would not be redistributing the license with "each copy". Please enlighten me. Roozbeh From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Jan 28 13:18:15 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:18:15 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal issues with new font guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49805B17.5000803@redhat.com> On 2009-01-28 at 1:05:01 -0500, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > Of course, if the user really wants to, she can investigate the binary > RPM, and find pointers to the actual license, and go and find the > license. But we would not be redistributing the license with "each > copy". > > Please enlighten me. IMHO, in such a scenario, it is acceptable to put a copy of the license in each binary RPM. This will not cause conflicts, because it is the same file in the same location. If this obsoletes the need for a -common package, then do not create one. However, the license may be embedded inside the font itself. Might be worth poking it with FontForge to see. If it is, then this is not necessary. ~spot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jan 28 13:32:39 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:32:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: Legal issues with new font guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le Mer 28 janvier 2009 07:05, Roozbeh Pournader a ?crit : > So, someone finds about the fonts, wants to use them on Windows, > searches for them, and finds our binary RPM for Mardana Sans, and > downloads it. She then opens it with some tool and installs it on her > machine. I don't think anyone can sue us because someone extracted stuff from an rpm and installed it without using rpm itself when all our own uses pass through rpm. I'd rate this risk at 1 on a scale of 100, when us distributing misappropriated font content included in a font file that we didn't detect in time would be 90. And in fact our current problem is more to get upstreams to write correct, complete and accurate legal documentation than upstreams complaining we do not propagate this documentation properly. But IANAL, and if there is a legal need, there is no technical limitation that would prevent duplicating the same files in all the subpackages of the same srpmmany times over. -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jan 28 13:41:39 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:41:39 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal issues with new font guidelines In-Reply-To: <49805B17.5000803@redhat.com> References: <49805B17.5000803@redhat.com> Message-ID: <69b4e2192bac43361fc4da7237b64078.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mer 28 janvier 2009 14:18, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a ?crit : > If this obsoletes the need for a -common > package, then do not create one. However if you don't you'll have to deal with the directory ownership of the common font directory (I purposefully didn't want to open this particular can of worm) and other common files. Also documentation can be bulky, especially when upstream provides in in pdf or .doc form with embedded bitmaps of what the font looks like. -- Nicolas Mailhot From billcrawford1970 at gmail.com Wed Jan 28 14:00:14 2009 From: billcrawford1970 at gmail.com (Bill Crawford) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:00:14 +0000 Subject: Legal issues with new font guidelines In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901281400.14804.billcrawford1970@gmail.com> On Wednesday 28 January 2009 06:05:01 Roozbeh Pournader wrote: ... > For the sake of argument, let us assume a font licensed under OFL, > called Mardana. The upstream tarball has two families inside, Mardana > Sans and Mardana Serif, in TTF format. The text of the OFL license is > not included in the TTFs themselves, but in a separate text file in > the tarball. Actually, let's assume the TTFs themselves don't have any > copyright or licensing metadata. ... > Of course, if the user really wants to, she can investigate the binary > RPM, and find pointers to the actual license, and go and find the > license. But we would not be redistributing the license with "each > copy". Put the license text file (I'm assuming it's not all that big) as %doc for each subpackage; it should end up in a separate directory under /usr/share/doc, thus eliminating any worry about file conflicts should someone update the license at any point and a user upgrade one font subpackage but not the other. From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Jan 28 14:54:29 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:54:29 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal issues with new font guidelines In-Reply-To: <69b4e2192bac43361fc4da7237b64078.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> References: <49805B17.5000803@redhat.com> <69b4e2192bac43361fc4da7237b64078.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <498071A5.6000601@redhat.com> On 2009-01-28 at 8:41:39 -0500, "Nicolas Mailhot" wrote: > However if you don't you'll have to deal with the directory ownership > of the common font directory (I purposefully didn't want to open this > particular can of worm) and other common files. > > Also documentation can be bulky, especially when upstream provides in > in pdf or .doc form with embedded bitmaps of what the font looks like. Well, it seems like there wouldn't be much of a case to obsolete -common in that scenario, just move the license into each subpackage. ~spo From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jan 28 14:52:09 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:52:09 +0100 (CET) Subject: Legal issues with new font guidelines In-Reply-To: <200901281400.14804.billcrawford1970@gmail.com> References: <200901281400.14804.billcrawford1970@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9a94d1322ad20805c0336130eef1d458.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mer 28 janvier 2009 15:00, Bill Crawford a ?crit : > Put the license text file (I'm assuming it's not all that big) This is not a safe asumption > as %doc for each > subpackage; it should end up in a separate directory under > /usr/share/doc, thus > eliminating any worry about file conflicts should someone update the > license at > any point and a user upgrade one font subpackage but not the other. This is not a problem, the template forces each subpackage to depend on the exact version of the common subpackage, so all the subpackages installed on a system will always be updated in lockstep. -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jan 28 15:08:01 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:08:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal issues with new font guidelines In-Reply-To: <498071A5.6000601@redhat.com> References: <49805B17.5000803@redhat.com> <69b4e2192bac43361fc4da7237b64078.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <498071A5.6000601@redhat.com> Message-ID: <7995db6da8f5ab13b8cade6f3ebbf103.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mer 28 janvier 2009 15:54, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a ?crit : ke. > > Well, it seems like there wouldn't be much of a case to obsolete > -common > in that scenario, just move the license into each subpackage. I was not clear, sorry. In that case "documentation" is a multi-meg .doc or .pdf file that includes windows installation instructions, examples of the font use in bitmap image form, and the ? that says "oh, and BTW, the font is ? X and released under the OFL" And to repeat my first message, the hypothetical use case is selective extraction of rpm content without using rpm, and re-distribution of selective parts of the distribution by third-parties without respecting constrains we enforce via rpm, which is not something we can be sued from since *we* would not be the ones doing the selective incomplete re-distribution. If we start worrying about this we may as well refuse to package all the fonts that do not include full licensing information in their metadata, since nothing would stop the hypothetical third-party to re-distribute the font files without the detached license file anyway (regardless in which package we deploy it) -- Nicolas Mailhot From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Jan 28 15:14:32 2009 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:14:32 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal issues with new font guidelines In-Reply-To: <7995db6da8f5ab13b8cade6f3ebbf103.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> References: <49805B17.5000803@redhat.com> <69b4e2192bac43361fc4da7237b64078.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <498071A5.6000601@redhat.com> <7995db6da8f5ab13b8cade6f3ebbf103.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <49807658.8080700@redhat.com> On 2009-01-28 at 10:08:01 -0500, "Nicolas Mailhot" wrote: > If we start worrying about this we may as well refuse to package all > the fonts that do not include full licensing information in their > metadata, since nothing would stop the hypothetical third-party to > re-distribute the font files without the detached license file anyway > (regardless in which package we deploy it) Apologies in advance, I read the original emails rather early this morning, and my brain was not yet fully booted. :) In addition, I had forgotten that each font package/subpackage in a family requires the -common package, so in normal operation, there is no way a font package installed would end up without the license also present. As Nicolas points out, we're doing due diligence here to ensure that the license is installed along with the font package in the normal, expected method of installation. In addition, any Fedora spin will pull in the appropriate -common package onto the distribution media (whether it is a Live spin or not), so it is incredibly unlikely that someone would be able to make a release with the licensing missing. In fact, the only way they'd be able to accomplish this is by explicitly ignoring dependencies or blocking the -common package (or installing with --nodocs), and all of these could be construed as passing the responsibility for licensing compliance from Fedora and on to the poor fool who decided to poke their packaging structure with a sharp stick. To sum it up: It is my opinion that it is not necessary to include the font license in each font package/subpackage as long as it is present in the -common package, and each of the font package/subpackages properly Requires the -common package. Roozbeh, thanks for pointing this out, and apologies for not thinking this all the way through before replying initially. ~spot From behdad at behdad.org Wed Jan 28 18:38:58 2009 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:38:58 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal issues with new font guidelines In-Reply-To: <7995db6da8f5ab13b8cade6f3ebbf103.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> References: <49805B17.5000803@redhat.com> <69b4e2192bac43361fc4da7237b64078.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <498071A5.6000601@redhat.com> <7995db6da8f5ab13b8cade6f3ebbf103.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4980A642.8020303@behdad.org> Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Mer 28 janvier 2009 15:54, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a ?crit : > ke. >> Well, it seems like there wouldn't be much of a case to obsolete >> -common >> in that scenario, just move the license into each subpackage. > > I was not clear, sorry. > > In that case "documentation" is a multi-meg .doc or .pdf file that > includes windows installation instructions, examples of the font use > in bitmap image form, and the ? that says "oh, and BTW, the font is ? > X and released under the OFL" Shouldn't it be -docs then? -common sounds like something the rest of the packages should depend on, which apparently is not the case here. I don't really like the sans and serif separation. It may make sense for megafonts like DejaVu, or CJK fonts, but can't think of any other case. behdad > And to repeat my first message, the hypothetical use case is selective > extraction of rpm content without using rpm, and re-distribution of > selective parts of the distribution by third-parties without > respecting constrains we enforce via rpm, which is not something we > can be sued from since *we* would not be the ones doing the selective > incomplete re-distribution. > > If we start worrying about this we may as well refuse to package all > the fonts that do not include full licensing information in their > metadata, since nothing would stop the hypothetical third-party to > re-distribute the font files without the detached license file anyway > (regardless in which package we deploy it) > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jan 28 19:37:20 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:37:20 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Legal issues with new font guidelines In-Reply-To: <4980A642.8020303@behdad.org> References: <49805B17.5000803@redhat.com> <69b4e2192bac43361fc4da7237b64078.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <498071A5.6000601@redhat.com> <7995db6da8f5ab13b8cade6f3ebbf103.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <4980A642.8020303@behdad.org> Message-ID: <1233171440.7063.8.camel@arekh.okg> Le mercredi 28 janvier 2009 ? 13:38 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > Le Mer 28 janvier 2009 15:54, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a ?crit : > > ke. > >> Well, it seems like there wouldn't be much of a case to obsolete > >> -common > >> in that scenario, just move the license into each subpackage. > > > > I was not clear, sorry. > > > > In that case "documentation" is a multi-meg .doc or .pdf file that > > includes windows installation instructions, examples of the font use > > in bitmap image form, and the ? that says "oh, and BTW, the font is ? > > X and released under the OFL" > > Shouldn't it be -docs then? -common sounds like something the rest of the > packages should depend on, which apparently is not the case here. It's not -doc because 1. the common packages has also a technical role as owner of common directory 2. several font packages put more than just doc in it (core font indexes, etc) 3. and anyway that's just a name, so please everyone take a break and not start another bike-shedding stage. If you want to comment comment on the technical spec templates, I've taken enough grief over renamings others inflicted on me I won't support in any way a new renaming crusade. > I don't really like the sans and serif separation. It may make sense for > megafonts like DejaVu, or CJK fonts, but can't think of any other case. I can't think of a single srpm in the repository where sans and serif are updated in lockstep at the same coverage (or style) level, except perhaps liberation (and I wouldn't expect this state to survive any serious community contribution). So in theory, I may agree with you, but in practice, sans and serif have different lives. And even if there were some, I wouldn't want to introduce exceptions that induce documentation and maintenance burdens just to make it a little prettier. Brutal simple same rules for everyone is much easier on packagers. -- 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 bochecha at fedoraproject.org Wed Jan 28 20:17:33 2009 From: bochecha at fedoraproject.org (Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:17:33 +0100 Subject: Needing Message-ID: <2d319b780901281217y2c38d030h351db9a7e2ab7c2b@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I'm packaging Waste's Edge in Fedora. That's a fantasy role playing game, and as such, it needs a nice font. Currently, one is shipped by upstream bundled with the code. Moreover, the font shipped is not free. This is bad, so the font must be removed from the Fedora package. Upstream isn't really willing to fix this, but he agrees on me removing the font from the package and using another one, as long as it "looks nice". :) My question here, to the guys who have all knowledge about fonts in Fedora, could someone indicate me a font that could be used ? Here are examples of what it currently looks like: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/game-menu.png (the font used by menu items) http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/game-intro.png I tried with DejaVu or other fonts available in Fedora, but the result wasn't great. For example, for DejaVu, the letter are too thin, which made the text hard ot read (because of the shadow surrounding the text). (of course, if I can find a nice free font, I might be able to convince upstream to switching to it for its next release) Anyone here knows a nice font ? :) Regards, ---------- Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) French Fedora Ambassador ---------- "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Jan 28 20:53:12 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:53:12 +0100 Subject: Needing In-Reply-To: <2d319b780901281217y2c38d030h351db9a7e2ab7c2b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2d319b780901281217y2c38d030h351db9a7e2ab7c2b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1233175992.8198.19.camel@arekh.okg> Le mercredi 28 janvier 2009 ? 21:17 +0100, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) a ?crit : > Hi, > > I'm packaging Waste's Edge in Fedora. That's a fantasy role playing > game, and as such, it needs a nice font. > > Currently, one is shipped by upstream bundled with the code. Moreover, > the font shipped is not free. This is bad, so the font must be removed > from the Fedora package. > > Upstream isn't really willing to fix this, but he agrees on me > removing the font from the package and using another one, as long as > it "looks nice". :) > > My question here, to the guys who have all knowledge about fonts in > Fedora, could someone indicate me a font that could be used ? > > Here are examples of what it currently looks like: > http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/game-menu.png (the font used by menu items) > http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/game-intro.png > > I tried with DejaVu or other fonts available in Fedora, but the result > wasn't great. For example, for DejaVu, the letter are too thin, which > made the text hard ot read (because of the shadow surrounding the > text). Looking a the screenshots, I'd say the game requires using a bold, not regular font. For example, Antykwa Toru?ska from GUST (or in a totally different style Cyclop) http://nowacki.strefa.pl/torunska-e.html It's on the wishlist BTW -- 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 palango at gmx.de Wed Jan 28 20:59:23 2009 From: palango at gmx.de (Paul Lange) Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:59:23 -0300 Subject: Introduction Message-ID: <4980C72B.9060408@gmx.de> Hey, my name is Paul Lange. I finished school in Germany this summer and currently stay in Chile for learning Spanish. I'm working for a tourism agency here, but it's not really well know and so I have some free time which I want to use to in a good way. I'm using Linux for 2,5 years now. I started with Ubuntu but switched to Fedora with the release of F10 because I like the use and integration of upstream software in Fedora and it looks great :) I've some experience in programming with C# but my linux knowledge (Shell ...) is really weak. But I want to improve my knowledge and packaging fonts sound great for it. I found the Fonts SIG over the excellent fedora classroom session provided by Nicolas and now want to help you. My IRC nick is palango and you can reach me via jabber with paul.lange at jabber.org. Paul From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jan 29 10:18:15 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:18:15 +0100 (CET) Subject: Introduction In-Reply-To: <4980C72B.9060408@gmx.de> References: <4980C72B.9060408@gmx.de> Message-ID: <27043c1bc01fa30c8fc1422c448a72d1.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mer 28 janvier 2009 21:59, Paul Lange a ?crit : > > Hey, Hi Paule > my name is Paul Lange. [...] > I found the Fonts SIG over the excellent fedora classroom session > provided by Nicolas and now want to help you Welcome on board. We have a mix of experienced and new packagers in the group, so don't hesitate to always ask for help there or on irc if you have questions. (if asking publicly is too intimidating you can always form a private cabal with other new packagers, it's sometimes easier to work with people at the same knowledge level). -- Nicolas Mailhot From bochecha at fedoraproject.org Thu Jan 29 10:52:53 2009 From: bochecha at fedoraproject.org (Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:52:53 +0100 Subject: Fwd: Introduction In-Reply-To: <2d319b780901290251r20f16da9xf66761672de4fbaa@mail.gmail.com> References: <4980C72B.9060408@gmx.de> <27043c1bc01fa30c8fc1422c448a72d1.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <2d319b780901290251r20f16da9xf66761672de4fbaa@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2d319b780901290252o689af552h85c08432853b1841@mail.gmail.com> Sorry, the message was sent only to Nicolas instead of the whole list. Gmail is killing me -_- ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) Date: Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:51 AM Subject: Re: Introduction To: Nicolas Mailhot >> I found the Fonts SIG over the excellent fedora classroom session >> provided by Nicolas and now want to help you > > Welcome on board. We have a mix of experienced and new packagers in > the group, so don't hesitate to always ask for help there or on irc if > you have questions. (if asking publicly is too intimidating you can > always form a private cabal with other new packagers, it's sometimes > easier to work with people at the same knowledge level). And we even have some intermediate packagers who are totally ignorant of how fonts work, but found themselves having to deal with fonts packaging against their will (ok, maybe I'm a little exagerating :) I don't have any problem with publicly asking for help, but I'd love to join a "cabal" of new font packagers. By the way, what was this IRC classroom about ? Did it deal with how to package fonts and "what-is-this-fontconfig-I'm-hearing-about" ? If yes, are the minutes available ? Is there another one planned ? Regards, ---------- Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) French Fedora Ambassador ---------- "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jan 29 11:41:06 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:41:06 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Fwd: Re: Introduction] Message-ID: Le Jeu 29 janvier 2009 11:51, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) a ?crit : > I don't have any problem with publicly asking for help, but I'd love > to join a "cabal" of new font packagers. > > By the way, what was this IRC classroom about ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_fonts_in_Fedora_%282008-12-07_classroom%29 > Did it deal with how > to package fonts and "what-is-this-fontconfig-I'm-hearing-about" ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ)#The_fontconfig_stuff_the_font_guidelines_suggest_seems_complex._Can_I_skip_it.3F http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ)#fontconfig -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jan 29 11:41:47 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:41:47 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Fwd: Re: Needing advice on choosing a font] Message-ID: Le Jeu 29 janvier 2009 11:32, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) a ?crit : > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Nicolas Mailhot > wrote: >> http://nowacki.strefa.pl/torunska-e.html >> >> It's on the wishlist BTW > > That's a really nice way to ask for me to package a new font ^_^ > > If possible, I'd like to use one already existing in the repositories, > but thanks for the suggestion in case I don't find one (it is indeed > really nice) > > Any other idea ? I don't think we currently have heavy serif fonts with an "old" feeling in the distribution. Most serif fonts tend to be thin (except for modern serif screen fonts, but they have a modern not oldish design). You can try asking on the open font library mailing list, some of the people there know their free/open fonts by heart, but they are likely to suggest not-packaged fonts too :) -- Nicolas Mailhot From palango at gmx.de Thu Jan 29 18:30:45 2009 From: palango at gmx.de (Paul Lange) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:30:45 -0300 Subject: Packaging questions Message-ID: <4981F5D5.3090807@gmx.de> Hey, I'm currently reading all that packaging stuff and start working on my first font. I've chosen Tagesschrift from the wishlist, you can find the webiste here: http://www.yanone.de/typedesign/tagesschrift/ If I don't explain my problems well you can find my current status here: http://palango.fedorapeople.org/ Well, first some questions to fontconfig. Tagesschrift is a serif font, but I'm not sure if I should declare its family as serif or fantasy because it's a kind of distorted. The other thing is the numeral prefix. I set it to 60 because it's latin but I'm not sure if it's not more a low priority font (means 61-64). Like to hear your opinion on that two things. I'm coming to the .spec file now. Everything is clear until the %setup -q command. Do I need to make any changes to this because the archive is a zip rather than a tar.gz archive? Next section is the %install command. This is really difficult for me. How can I find out where all this variables (_fontdir, _fontconfig_templatedir, ...) are pointing to? That's all for now. Thank you for your help! Paul From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Jan 29 19:07:11 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:07:11 +0100 Subject: Packaging questions In-Reply-To: <4981F5D5.3090807@gmx.de> References: <4981F5D5.3090807@gmx.de> Message-ID: <1233256031.19140.47.camel@arekh.okg> Le jeudi 29 janvier 2009 ? 15:30 -0300, Paul Lange a ?crit : > Hey, > > I'm currently reading all that packaging stuff and start working on my > first font. I've chosen Tagesschrift from the wishlist, you can find the > webiste here: http://www.yanone.de/typedesign/tagesschrift/ > > If I don't explain my problems well you can find my current status here: > http://palango.fedorapeople.org/ > > Well, first some questions to fontconfig. Tagesschrift is a serif font, > but I'm not sure if I should declare its family as serif or fantasy > because it's a kind of distorted. When you have a doubt if a font is rather fantasy or something else, that usually means the font is fantasy. Also you can check in fontforge what the font author declared (ctrl+e) Here you'll see the OS/2 PFM family is set to "Decorative" which is another name for "Fantasy". > The other thing is the numeral prefix. > I set it to 60 because it's latin but I'm not sure if it's not more a > low priority font (means 61-64). I'd have put it to 63-64 because it has no bold/italic variants so it's better to let more complete fonts resolve first. > Like to hear your opinion on that two > things. > > I'm coming to the .spec file now. Everything is clear until the %setup > -q command. Do I need to make any changes to this because the archive is > a zip rather than a tar.gz archive? %setup will process most of the well-known archive formats automatically. It's not limited to zip. What it can't do is guess if upstream used the sane convention of using a top directory named the same way as the archive or something else. If you're in the "something else" case you need to pass some flags to % setup manually http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-macros.html %setup is about the only part of the template that must be changed in a case-by-case basis depending on how upstream packed its sources. > Next section is the %install command. This is really difficult for me. > How can I find out where all this variables (_fontdir, > _fontconfig_templatedir, ...) are pointing to? You're not supposed to. The variables are right as they are. As documented in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template you have at most the *.ttf to change in the %install section, if your fonts are located in a subdirectory and not directly in the root directory of the archive. -- 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 roozbeh at gmail.com Fri Jan 30 09:23:47 2009 From: roozbeh at gmail.com (Roozbeh Pournader) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:23:47 -0800 Subject: Lost in translation: font policy ambiguous regarding localization groups Message-ID: Having just renamed two character-rich fonts, I was planning to add them to relative xxx-support groups when I found that I really don't know what the fonts policy means there. Quoting from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Grouping: * Font packages in a non-legacy format (TTF or OTF): [...] 2. SHOULD also be registered in every applicable xxx-support localization group: * except groups that only require glyphs in the basic latin range. What does "the basic latin range" mean here? Does it mean all the characters in the Unicode range U+0000..U+007F, which Unicode calls "Basic Latin", and everybody just calls ASCII? Or does it mean U+0000..00FF, which according to Unicode is called "Basic Latin+Latin-1 Supplement"? Even when I take the extended definiition, looking at the existing comps file for F11, it seems that the following languages need glyphs outside that range, and still list not a single font in the xxx-support localization group. I have listed some of the extra characters they need too: * Afrikaans: U+0149 * Bosnian: U+0106, U+010C, U+017D * Catalan: U+013F, U+0140 * Esperanto: U+0108, U+011C, U+0124 * Finnish: U+0160, U+017D * French: U+0152, U+0153, U+0178 The list goes on. The source of needed glyphs come from *.orth files in fontconfig. In fontconfig's source tree, they are in the fc-lang subdirectory. I think we really need to reword that part of the policy. We need to mention how to find the glyphs needed for each language (from fontconfig? CLDR?), how to find the languages a font supports (is there a fc-list command line argument?), and redefine (and reword) "groups that only require glyphs in the basic latin range" to make sure everyone gets the same meaning from it. Roozbeh From palango at gmx.de Fri Jan 30 15:09:20 2009 From: palango at gmx.de (Paul Lange) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:09:20 -0300 Subject: Packaging questions In-Reply-To: <1233256031.19140.47.camel@arekh.okg> References: <4981F5D5.3090807@gmx.de> <1233256031.19140.47.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1233328160.3333.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Am Donnerstag, den 29.01.2009, 20:07 +0100 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot: > Le jeudi 29 janvier 2009 ? 15:30 -0300, Paul Lange a ?crit : > > Hey, > > > > I'm currently reading all that packaging stuff and start working on my > > first font. I've chosen Tagesschrift from the wishlist, you can find the > > webiste here: http://www.yanone.de/typedesign/tagesschrift/ > > > > If I don't explain my problems well you can find my current status here: > > http://palango.fedorapeople.org/ > > > > Well, first some questions to fontconfig. Tagesschrift is a serif font, > > but I'm not sure if I should declare its family as serif or fantasy > > because it's a kind of distorted. > > When you have a doubt if a font is rather fantasy or something else, > that usually means the font is fantasy. Also you can check in fontforge > what the font author declared (ctrl+e) > > Here you'll see the OS/2 PFM family is set to "Decorative" which is > another name for "Fantasy". OK, changed this. FontForge also says the version is 1.0 should I use this or the release date like now? > > The other thing is the numeral prefix. > > I set it to 60 because it's latin but I'm not sure if it's not more a > > low priority font (means 61-64). > > I'd have put it to 63-64 because it has no bold/italic variants so it's > better to let more complete fonts resolve first. Well, makes sense to me. Changed. > > Like to hear your opinion on that two > > things. > > > > I'm coming to the .spec file now. Everything is clear until the %setup > > -q command. Do I need to make any changes to this because the archive is > > a zip rather than a tar.gz archive? > > %setup will process most of the well-known archive formats > automatically. It's not limited to zip. > > What it can't do is guess if upstream used the sane convention of using > a top directory named the same way as the archive or something else. If > you're in the "something else" case you need to pass some flags to % > setup manually > > http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-macros.html > > %setup is about the only part of the template that must be changed in a > case-by-case basis depending on how upstream packed its sources. > > > Next section is the %install command. This is really difficult for me. > > How can I find out where all this variables (_fontdir, > > _fontconfig_templatedir, ...) are pointing to? > > You're not supposed to. The variables are right as they are. As > documented in > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template > > you have at most the *.ttf to change in the %install section, if your > fonts are located in a subdirectory and not directly in the root > directory of the archive. Well, that's clear now. I built my package now and rpmls says the following (which looks good to me): $ rpmls yanone-tagesschrift-fonts-20050524-1.fc10.noarch.rpm lrw-r--r-- /etc/fonts/conf.d/64-yanone-tagesschrift.conf -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/64-yanone-tagesschrift.conf drwxr-xr-x /usr/share/fonts/yanone-tagesschrift -rw-r--r-- /usr/share/fonts/yanone-tagesschrift/YanoneTagesschrift.ttf but rpmlint has 2 warning for me: yanone-tagesschrift-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation yanone-tagesschrift-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/64-yanone-tagesschrift.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/64-yanone-tagesschrift.conf How to handle them? Thank you in advance! Paul -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jan 30 18:04:18 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:04:18 +0100 Subject: Packaging questions In-Reply-To: <1233328160.3333.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4981F5D5.3090807@gmx.de> <1233256031.19140.47.camel@arekh.okg> <1233328160.3333.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1233338658.24109.4.camel@arekh.okg> Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009 ? 12:09 -0300, Paul Lange a ?crit : > > OK, changed this. FontForge also says the version is 1.0 should I use > this or the release date like now? As the documentation says never use 1.0 unless your 100% sure the next release will be named 1.1 and not 1.0 again > but rpmlint has 2 warning for me: > > yanone-tagesschrift-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation If there is really no upstream documentation there is not much you can do (but look at how yanone-kaffeesatz is packaged anyway) > yanone-tagesschrift-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/64-yanone-tagesschrift.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/64-yanone-tagesschrift.conf http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#rpmlint_complains_of_absolute_symbolic_links.21 rpmlint output is to be taken with a grain of salt, especially warnings -- 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 Fri Jan 30 21:51:33 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:51:33 +0100 Subject: Lost in translation: font policy ambiguous regarding localization groups In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1233352293.3733.9.camel@arekh.okg> Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009 ? 01:23 -0800, Roozbeh Pournader a ?crit : > Having just renamed two character-rich fonts, I was planning to add > them to relative xxx-support groups when I found that I really don't > know what the fonts policy means there. Quoting from > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Grouping: > > * Font packages in a non-legacy format (TTF or OTF): [...] > 2. SHOULD also be registered in every applicable xxx-support > localization group: > * except groups that only require glyphs in the basic latin range. > > What does "the basic latin range" mean here? Does it mean all the > characters in the Unicode range U+0000..U+007F, which Unicode calls > "Basic Latin", Yes > and everybody just calls ASCII? Everybody just calls ASCII iso-8859-1 or even plain text in any encoding. ASCII is meaningless as soon as you put everybody in the equation. > Or does it mean > U+0000..00FF, which according to Unicode is called "Basic > Latin+Latin-1 Supplement"? > > Even when I take the extended definiition, looking at the existing > comps file for F11, it seems that the following languages need glyphs > outside that range, and still list not a single font in the > xxx-support localization group. I have listed some of the extra > characters they need too: > > * Afrikaans: U+0149 > * Bosnian: U+0106, U+010C, U+017D > * Catalan: U+013F, U+0140 > * Esperanto: U+0108, U+011C, U+0124 > * Finnish: U+0160, U+017D > * French: U+0152, U+0153, U+0178 > > The list goes on. The source of needed glyphs come from *.orth files > in fontconfig. In fontconfig's source tree, they are in the fc-lang > subdirectory. Note that the guidelines says SHOULD, not MUST so 100% compliance is not expected (even though we've been slacking IMHO) > > I think we really need to reword that part of the policy. We need to > mention how to find the glyphs needed for each language (from > fontconfig? CLDR?), how to find the languages a font supports (is > there a fc-list command line argument?), and redefine (and reword) > "groups that only require glyphs in the basic latin range" to make > sure everyone gets the same meaning from it. Well, sure, if you feel strongly about it just do it. I'll welcome someone else working on enhancing our fonts packaging guidelines for once :) IMHO our fonts-related comps groups have become too big to be user-friendly and effective, but this opinion does not seem to be shared by a lot of people so I had pushed reworking our comps rules to some other future release. -- 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 roozbeh at gmail.com Fri Jan 30 22:17:40 2009 From: roozbeh at gmail.com (Roozbeh Pournader) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:17:40 -0800 Subject: Lost in translation: font policy ambiguous regarding localization groups In-Reply-To: <1233352293.3733.9.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1233352293.3733.9.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009 ? 01:23 -0800, Roozbeh Pournader a ?crit : >> and everybody just calls ASCII? > > Everybody just calls ASCII iso-8859-1 or even plain text in any > encoding. ASCII is meaningless as soon as you put everybody in the > equation. You lost me there. Are you saying that people are usually careless about using character set names, or are you saying the term "ASCII" is ambiguous? > Note that the guidelines says SHOULD, not MUST so 100% compliance is not > expected (even though we've been slacking IMHO) Oh of course. But SHOULD means: "SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a particular item, but the full implications must be understood and carefully weighed before choosing a different course." [RFC 2119] So, I need to understand the full implications before I choose not to do it ;-) > Well, sure, if you feel strongly about it just do it. I'll welcome > someone else working on enhancing our fonts packaging guidelines for > once :) OK, I will think about it and see what makes sense. I will probably need to write a script or two to investigate the fonts we have with the language coverage. > IMHO our fonts-related comps groups have become too big to be > user-friendly and effective, but this opinion does not seem to be shared > by a lot of people so I had pushed reworking our comps rules to some > other future release. That's another story now... Roozbeh From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Jan 30 22:35:59 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:35:59 +0100 Subject: Lost in translation: font policy ambiguous regarding localization groups In-Reply-To: References: <1233352293.3733.9.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1233354959.4991.2.camel@arekh.okg> Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009 ? 14:17 -0800, Roozbeh Pournader a ?crit : > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Nicolas Mailhot > wrote: > > Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009 ? 01:23 -0800, Roozbeh Pournader a ?crit : > >> and everybody just calls ASCII? > > > > Everybody just calls ASCII iso-8859-1 or even plain text in any > > encoding. ASCII is meaningless as soon as you put everybody in the > > equation. > > You lost me there. Are you saying that people are usually careless > about using character set names, or are you saying the term "ASCII" is > ambiguous? I'm saying ASCII has been abused so often by people with no deep encoding knowledge it's effectively meaningless today. And anyway Unicode is what people should focus on now. -- 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 palango at gmx.de Fri Jan 30 23:28:03 2009 From: palango at gmx.de (Paul Lange) Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:28:03 -0300 Subject: Packaging questions In-Reply-To: <1233338658.24109.4.camel@arekh.okg> References: <4981F5D5.3090807@gmx.de> <1233256031.19140.47.camel@arekh.okg> <1233328160.3333.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233338658.24109.4.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1233358083.10281.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Am Freitag, den 30.01.2009, 19:04 +0100 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot: > Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009 ? 12:09 -0300, Paul Lange a ?crit : > > > > OK, changed this. FontForge also says the version is 1.0 should I use > > this or the release date like now? > > As the documentation says never use 1.0 unless your 100% sure the next > release will be named 1.1 and not 1.0 again > > > but rpmlint has 2 warning for me: > > > > yanone-tagesschrift-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation > > If there is really no upstream documentation there is not much you can > do (but look at how yanone-kaffeesatz is packaged anyway) > > > yanone-tagesschrift-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/64-yanone-tagesschrift.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/64-yanone-tagesschrift.conf > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#rpmlint_complains_of_absolute_symbolic_links.21 > > rpmlint output is to be taken with a grain of salt, especially warnings Hey, thank you for your fast answer! I created a Review request for my package. You find it here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483363 One thing I noticed when going through the Joining the Fonts SIG wikipage: There is written that you should apply for membership in the cvsextras group on fas. This group does (not longer) exist. One more question. I started looking at the next font - Vollkorn. http://www.grafikfritze.de/?p=43 On the website there is only the *.otf file. Should I put it into an archive for packaging? Thank you a lot! Paul -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Jan 31 08:43:36 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:43:36 +0100 Subject: Packaging questions In-Reply-To: <1233358083.10281.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4981F5D5.3090807@gmx.de> <1233256031.19140.47.camel@arekh.okg> <1233328160.3333.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233338658.24109.4.camel@arekh.okg> <1233358083.10281.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1233391416.11691.8.camel@arekh.okg> Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009 ? 20:28 -0300, Paul Lange a ?crit : > Hey, > thank you for your fast answer! np > I created a Review request for my package. You find it here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483363 I'll look at it soonish. For actual sponsoring I'll wait for one or two more successful submissions by you, as the fonts packaging process has been streamlined so much a single submission is not really selective nowadays. > One thing I noticed when going through the Joining the Fonts SIG > wikipage: There is written that you should apply for membership in the > cvsextras group on fas. This group does (not longer) exist. Thank you for noticing *and reporting* this. Should be fixed now (BTW anyone declared in FAS is free and encouraged to fix and improve the SIG wiki pages, only the official guidelines are locked) > One more question. I started looking at the next font - Vollkorn. > http://www.grafikfritze.de/?p=43 > > On the website there is only the *.otf file. Should I put it into an > archive for packaging? Try to always use the files in the form provided upstream with their exact link in Source: . The only exceptions are archives that include stuff we can not distribute, even in an srpm, or archives that need a non-free unpacker. In those cases we do re-create source archives but it's and exception mode that should be avoided as much as possible. 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 behdad at behdad.org Sat Jan 31 09:03:45 2009 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 04:03:45 -0500 Subject: Lost in translation: font policy ambiguous regarding localization groups In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <498413F1.4020705@behdad.org> Roozbeh Pournader wrote: > Having just renamed two character-rich fonts, I was planning to add > them to relative xxx-support groups when I found that I really don't > know what the fonts policy means there. Quoting from > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Grouping: > > * Font packages in a non-legacy format (TTF or OTF): [...] > 2. SHOULD also be registered in every applicable xxx-support > localization group: > * except groups that only require glyphs in the basic latin range. > > What does "the basic latin range" mean here? Does it mean all the > characters in the Unicode range U+0000..U+007F, which Unicode calls > "Basic Latin", and everybody just calls ASCII? Or does it mean > U+0000..00FF, which according to Unicode is called "Basic > Latin+Latin-1 Supplement"? > > Even when I take the extended definiition, looking at the existing > comps file for F11, it seems that the following languages need glyphs > outside that range, and still list not a single font in the > xxx-support localization group. I have listed some of the extra > characters they need too: > > * Afrikaans: U+0149 > * Bosnian: U+0106, U+010C, U+017D > * Catalan: U+013F, U+0140 > * Esperanto: U+0108, U+011C, U+0124 > * Finnish: U+0160, U+017D > * French: U+0152, U+0153, U+0178 > > The list goes on. The source of needed glyphs come from *.orth files > in fontconfig. In fontconfig's source tree, they are in the fc-lang > subdirectory. > > I think we really need to reword that part of the policy. We need to > mention how to find the glyphs needed for each language (from > fontconfig? CLDR?), how to find the languages a font supports (is > there a fc-list command line argument?), and redefine (and reword) > "groups that only require glyphs in the basic latin range" to make > sure everyone gets the same meaning from it. I confess I don't really know how this xxx-support localization group thingy works, but for F11, we are implementing this font autoinstallation feature and as part of that font packages are automatically tagged with languages they support. For example, a font supporting Persian and English (among others), will have RPM Provides "Font(:lang=fa)" and "Font(:lang=en)". Maybe these can be used to obviate manual tagging? /me lets Nicolas take it from here behdad > Roozbeh From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Jan 31 09:26:27 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 10:26:27 +0100 Subject: Lost in translation: font policy ambiguous regarding localization groups In-Reply-To: <498413F1.4020705@behdad.org> References: <498413F1.4020705@behdad.org> Message-ID: <1233393987.11691.12.camel@arekh.okg> Le samedi 31 janvier 2009 ? 04:03 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : > I confess I don't really know how this xxx-support localization group thingy > works, I'm no specialist but it's supposed to pre-install sets of packages when users have selected a particular localization in anaconda. So it would be complementary to the new autoinstall stuff: install a basic font complement via anaconda, and then auto install complements (for example if the user starts typing/reading text in some other script than the one of its primary locale) But of course localization groups may be not worth the work we do in maintaining it. This is really a question for yum/anaconda and i18n folks. -- 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 palango at gmx.de Sat Jan 31 15:34:26 2009 From: palango at gmx.de (Paul Lange) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:34:26 -0300 Subject: Packaging questions In-Reply-To: <1233391416.11691.8.camel@arekh.okg> References: <4981F5D5.3090807@gmx.de> <1233256031.19140.47.camel@arekh.okg> <1233328160.3333.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233338658.24109.4.camel@arekh.okg> <1233358083.10281.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233391416.11691.8.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1233416066.3264.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> Am Samstag, den 31.01.2009, 09:43 +0100 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot: > Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009 ? 20:28 -0300, Paul Lange a ?crit : > > > Hey, > > thank you for your fast answer! > > np > > > I created a Review request for my package. You find it here: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483363 > > I'll look at it soonish. > > For actual sponsoring I'll wait for one or two more successful > submissions by you, as the fonts packaging process has been streamlined > so much a single submission is not really selective nowadays. Thank you for looking at it. I improved both summary and description a bit - so it's (more or less) perfect now ;) > > One thing I noticed when going through the Joining the Fonts SIG > > wikipage: There is written that you should apply for membership in the > > cvsextras group on fas. This group does (not longer) exist. > > Thank you for noticing *and reporting* this. Should be fixed now (BTW > anyone declared in FAS is free and encouraged to fix and improve the SIG > wiki pages, only the official guidelines are locked) That's clear but I didn't know how the group is called now. > > One more question. I started looking at the next font - Vollkorn. > > http://www.grafikfritze.de/?p=43 > > > > On the website there is only the *.otf file. Should I put it into an > > archive for packaging? > > Try to always use the files in the form provided upstream with their > exact link in Source: . The only exceptions are archives that include > stuff we can not distribute, even in an srpm, or archives that need a > non-free unpacker. In those cases we do re-create source archives but > it's and exception mode that should be avoided as much as possible. Well, created an archive for it. Now my next question is how to handle this in the spec-file: #URL of the font, not the download URL: http://www.grafikfritze.de/?p=43 #Path to the archive I created Source0: %{archivename}.tar.gz #Path to the fontconf file Source1: %{name}-fontconfig.conf Should I create a Source2 field with the URL of the download or introduce a URL2 field? Thanks! Paul -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Jan 31 16:36:02 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:36:02 +0100 Subject: Packaging questions In-Reply-To: <1233416066.3264.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4981F5D5.3090807@gmx.de> <1233256031.19140.47.camel@arekh.okg> <1233328160.3333.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233338658.24109.4.camel@arekh.okg> <1233358083.10281.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233391416.11691.8.camel@arekh.okg> <1233416066.3264.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1233419762.26894.4.camel@arekh.okg> Le samedi 31 janvier 2009 ? 12:34 -0300, Paul Lange a ?crit : > Well, created an archive for it. You should not :p %setup has all kinds of magic switches to deal with stuff in special archive formats or even outside archive formats (cf the maximum-rpm page on macros). Except for very special reasons, you should always package the files upstream provided, without any change or repackaging. And you source line should be the full URL to upstream's file (except when it makes rpmbuild crap out, in which case a filename with no URL and the original URL commented on the above line is the way to go). -- 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 palango at gmx.de Sat Jan 31 17:14:40 2009 From: palango at gmx.de (Paul Lange) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:14:40 -0300 Subject: Packaging questions In-Reply-To: <1233419762.26894.4.camel@arekh.okg> References: <4981F5D5.3090807@gmx.de> <1233256031.19140.47.camel@arekh.okg> <1233328160.3333.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233338658.24109.4.camel@arekh.okg> <1233358083.10281.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233391416.11691.8.camel@arekh.okg> <1233416066.3264.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233419762.26894.4.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1233422080.3264.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> Am Samstag, den 31.01.2009, 17:36 +0100 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot: > Le samedi 31 janvier 2009 ? 12:34 -0300, Paul Lange a ?crit : > > > Well, created an archive for it. > > You should not :p Oh, misunderstood you but it's clear now. > %setup has all kinds of magic switches to deal with stuff in special > archive formats or even outside archive formats (cf the maximum-rpm page > on macros). > > Except for very special reasons, you should always package the files > upstream provided, without any change or repackaging. And you source > line should be the full URL to upstream's file (except when it makes > rpmbuild crap out, in which case a filename with no URL and the original > URL commented on the above line is the way to go). I'm a bit lost now. Because it's not an archive I need to pass -T option. But I found no option to copy the source(file) without processing. I helped with moving it by myself - but I'm not sure if this is right: %setup -q -c -T install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE0} . regards, Paul -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Jan 31 17:40:10 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:40:10 +0100 Subject: Packaging questions In-Reply-To: <1233422080.3264.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4981F5D5.3090807@gmx.de> <1233256031.19140.47.camel@arekh.okg> <1233328160.3333.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233338658.24109.4.camel@arekh.okg> <1233358083.10281.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233391416.11691.8.camel@arekh.okg> <1233416066.3264.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233419762.26894.4.camel@arekh.okg> <1233422080.3264.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1233423610.27900.1.camel@arekh.okg> Le samedi 31 janvier 2009 ? 14:14 -0300, Paul Lange a ?crit : > I'm a bit lost now. Because it's not an archive I need to pass -T > option. But I found no option to copy the source(file) without > processing. I helped with moving it by myself - but I'm not sure if this > is right: > > %setup -q -c -T > install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE0} . This is ok If you don't do any processing on the file, you can even use %{SOURCEX} directly in %install -- 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 palango at gmx.de Sat Jan 31 17:59:13 2009 From: palango at gmx.de (Paul Lange) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:59:13 -0300 Subject: Packaging questions In-Reply-To: <1233423610.27900.1.camel@arekh.okg> References: <4981F5D5.3090807@gmx.de> <1233256031.19140.47.camel@arekh.okg> <1233328160.3333.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233338658.24109.4.camel@arekh.okg> <1233358083.10281.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233391416.11691.8.camel@arekh.okg> <1233416066.3264.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233419762.26894.4.camel@arekh.okg> <1233422080.3264.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1233423610.27900.1.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1233424753.3264.42.camel@localhost.localdomain> Am Samstag, den 31.01.2009, 18:40 +0100 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot: > Le samedi 31 janvier 2009 ? 14:14 -0300, Paul Lange a ?crit : > > > I'm a bit lost now. Because it's not an archive I need to pass -T > > option. But I found no option to copy the source(file) without > > processing. I helped with moving it by myself - but I'm not sure if this > > is right: > > > > %setup -q -c -T > > install -m 0644 -p %{SOURCE0} . > > This is ok > > If you don't do any processing on the file, you can even use %{SOURCEX} > directly in %install Yeah, this makes sense. I changed this and opened a Review request. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483400 Thank you! Paul -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil URL: From palango at gmx.de Sat Jan 31 23:00:52 2009 From: palango at gmx.de (Paul Lange) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:00:52 -0300 Subject: Font CVS Requests Message-ID: <1233442852.3238.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hey, after my two packages has been approved (thank you Nicolas). I'm going to start to integrate them into the Fedora CVS system. Now I have some question for creating the New Package CVS Request: Who should I put in as owner(s). Is this just me or anything like the fonts SIG? Same question for InitialCC. Do I usually put someone in here? In the documentation is written, that the devel branch is automatically created. So do I leave this field empty? Thank you! Paul -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil URL: From oget.fedora at gmail.com Sat Jan 31 23:27:19 2009 From: oget.fedora at gmail.com (Orcan Ogetbil) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:27:19 -0500 Subject: Font CVS Requests In-Reply-To: <1233442852.3238.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1233442852.3238.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Paul Lange wrote: > Hey, > > after my two packages has been approved (thank you Nicolas). I'm going > to start to integrate them into the Fedora CVS system. > That's nice > Now I have some question for creating the New Package CVS Request: > Actually the font lifecycle page explains a lot: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle > Who should I put in as owner(s). Is this just me or anything like the > fonts SIG? It's you, plus whoever you want to maintain the package with (if there is any). > Same question for InitialCC. Do I usually put someone in here? > As explained in the above link you include fonts-sig to CC, plus whoever wants to get included (if there is any). > In the documentation is written, that the devel branch is automatically > created. So do I leave this field empty? > If you also want to publish the font in stable branches put F-9 for Fedora 9, F-10 for Fedora 10. These are explained here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure Also, here is your walkthrough to get your package into Fedora: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle > > Thank you! > Paul > > Cheers, Orcan From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Jan 31 23:33:43 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:33:43 +0100 Subject: Font CVS Requests In-Reply-To: <1233442852.3238.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1233442852.3238.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1233444823.2295.4.camel@arekh.okg> Le samedi 31 janvier 2009 ? 20:00 -0300, Paul Lange a ?crit : > Who should I put in as owner(s). Is this just me or anything like the > fonts SIG? It's just you; you're now the one taking care of the package > Same question for InitialCC. Do I usually put someone in here? For fonts packages you pur the fonts SIG in here > In the documentation is written, that the devel branch is automatically > created. So do I leave this field empty? Unless you want to push you packages to previous releases, empty is ok (you can also put "devel only" in there just to be sure) You have a fairly recent example of what it looks like here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481472#c3 -- 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: