[Bug 531040] Review Request: jsMath-fonts - A collection of Math symbol fonts

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=531040


Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?,
                   |                            |needinfo?(rdieter at math.unl.
                   |                            |edu)




--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>  2009-11-03 16:04:25 EDT ---
1. Please use a lowercase package name as per Fedora font packaging guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Naming

2. Please use the font packaging templates in fontpackages-devel as per Fedora
font packaging guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Technical_implementation

(otherwise no font metadata will be generated at build time; note that it won't
work on mixed case packages)

3. Please check what repo-font-audit says about your package,

 a. install fontpackages-tools from
    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=139320
 b. put your rpms in a dir
 c. run createrepo on it
 d. run repo-font-audit test file://absolute-path-to-the-dir

it will catch this kind of mistake (also identify other problems that need to
be relayed upstream)

4. the font splitup and naming seems a giant pre-unicode pre-wws mess. the
different files are probably all parts of the same font family, except they're
not properly named and their symbols not properly mapped at the right unicode
points (granted, some math codepoints are only being standardised today thanks
to the nice work of the stix project). For this reason, it's probably  better
to suff all the files in the same package, and not create a subpackage for each
of them (you gotta love when upstreams decide to create their own non-standard
conventions to confuse everyone else)

5. a fontconfig file would be nice, if only to document the font should be put
at a very low priority in fontconfig stacks (but since fontconfig relies on
font naming, and this font naming is weird, that may not be sufficient)

6. Please check with spot this font is not on his TEX blacklist

7. When there is no obvious version in a font set we usually use the timestamp
of the most recent font file in the archive upstream released as version

8. Other font packages use User Interface/X as group (which is arguably not
ideal, but not worth creating inconsistencies with other packages)

9. If you wanted to package this for non-fedora distros such as epel, it'd
probably be more effective to push fontpackages there than add conditionals in
specs. Pushing fontpackages is not difficult you only need to :
1. put back in the spec templates the warts that could be removed in Fedora
thanks to recent rpm enhancements
2. check the yum-utils is recent enough to run repo-font-audit (else remove
this part)
3. check the fontconfig is recent enough to accept split config files in
/etc/fonts/conf.d (else remove the fontconfig templates)

fontpackages has few deps, only the templates included in it depend on
particular enhancements and need "porting"

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.