From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Nov 1 18:28:19 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:28:19 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Fonts SIG packaging policies validation In-Reply-To: <8041.192.54.193.51.1193225938.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <8041.192.54.193.51.1193225938.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1193941699.12653.2.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Hi all, Everyone had a week to have his say and complete the files, and I've submitted the pages to FPC for approval http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DraftsTodo 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 Nov 3 08:46:29 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 09:46:29 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: [Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation In-Reply-To: <1194048581.23545.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> References: <8041.192.54.193.51.1193225938.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <471FFCBA.3070801@redhat.com> <1193333841.24738.8.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1194048581.23545.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> Message-ID: <1194079589.31248.1.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le vendredi 02 novembre 2007 ? 20:09 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : > Yes, please no legacy font system crap. Documented in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy > My only comment on the SpecTemplate is that with new fontconfig in > rawhide, there's no need to force fc-cache anymore. Added to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsSpecTemplate 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 pertusus at free.fr Sat Nov 3 10:05:10 2007 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 11:05:10 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: [Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation In-Reply-To: <1194079589.31248.1.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <8041.192.54.193.51.1193225938.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <471FFCBA.3070801@redhat.com> <1193333841.24738.8.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1194048581.23545.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1194079589.31248.1.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20071103100510.GD2663@free.fr> On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le vendredi 02 novembre 2007 ? 20:09 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : > > > Yes, please no legacy font system crap. > > Documented in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy I don't exactly understand the full story, but what is exactly a core font? It seems to me that mkfondir and xfs are not really needed anymore. I have a package (libdockapp) that ships some bitmap fonts. Is it the same? In this package I have a link in /etc/X11/fontpath.d/ linking to the font directory. Is there an issue with this type of fonts (called along luxel-ascii-06x09.pcf.gz seg7-ascii-05x07.pcf.gz)? I run fc-cache in this package scriptlets, although I am not sure that it is useful. -- Pat From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Nov 3 10:46:01 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 11:46:01 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: [Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation In-Reply-To: <20071103100510.GD2663@free.fr> References: <8041.192.54.193.51.1193225938.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <471FFCBA.3070801@redhat.com> <1193333841.24738.8.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1194048581.23545.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1194079589.31248.1.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <20071103100510.GD2663@free.fr> Message-ID: <1194086761.31248.29.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le samedi 03 novembre 2007 ? 11:05 +0100, Patrice Dumas a ?crit : > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > Le vendredi 02 novembre 2007 ? 20:09 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : > > > > > Yes, please no legacy font system crap. > > > > Documented in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy > > I don't exactly understand the full story, but what is exactly a core > font? Anything that uses the old server-side X backend. I didn't name it, blame XFree86 people ;) > It seems to me that mkfondir and xfs are not really needed > anymore. I have a package (libdockapp) that ships some bitmap fonts. Is > it the same? In this package I have a link in > /etc/X11/fontpath.d/ > linking to the font directory. That's the Core fonts XFDL backend, yes. > Is there an issue with this type of > fonts (called along luxel-ascii-06x09.pcf.gz seg7-ascii-05x07.pcf.gz)? The only "issue" as explained in the policy is the Core Fonts backend is pretty much unmaintained now, and got abandoned by XFree86 developpers because of numerous unfixable problems, so when you feed it new fonts you play with fire. You break something or trigger an old bug you get to keep the pieces because you won't find a lot of people ready to help. I'd have though ?Behdad's reaction was clear (and he's our leading font developer). > I run fc-cache in this package scriptlets, although I am not sure that > it is useful. I find it terrifying that every packager of legacy fonts I've talked with so far has no clue if the directives he puts in his spec actually work or why. It's always blind copy paste of old specs and if you copy enough stuff things sort-of work. Please get together and write guidelines for legacy font packaging (with scriptlets you actually understand). I've wrote it before and write it here again: I have zip interest in legacy fonts. I recognise it's font stuff some Fedora users need, so the Fonts SIG wiki will host any properly-written legacy fonts policy. But I won't write it for you. I've investigated this stuff enough years ago to decide it's a radioactive dead-end, if someone wants to keep risking it more power to him, but that's on his head. The general SIG policy as expressed in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy is that new font packagers should not even consider the legacy backend, people dead-set on using it can (that's why it's a SHOULD NOT not MUST NOT) but we tell them explicitely it's a very bad idea. 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 pertusus at free.fr Sat Nov 3 11:13:49 2007 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 12:13:49 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: [Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation In-Reply-To: <1194086761.31248.29.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <8041.192.54.193.51.1193225938.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <471FFCBA.3070801@redhat.com> <1193333841.24738.8.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1194048581.23545.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1194079589.31248.1.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <20071103100510.GD2663@free.fr> <1194086761.31248.29.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20071103111349.GE2663@free.fr> On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 11:46:01AM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > It seems to me that mkfondir and xfs are not really needed > > anymore. I have a package (libdockapp) that ships some bitmap fonts. Is > > it the same? In this package I have a link in > > /etc/X11/fontpath.d/ > > linking to the font directory. > > That's the Core fonts XFDL backend, yes. Ok. > > I run fc-cache in this package scriptlets, although I am not sure that > > it is useful. > > I find it terrifying that every packager of legacy fonts I've talked > with so far has no clue if the directives he puts in his spec actually > work or why. It's always blind copy paste of old specs and if you copy > enough stuff things sort-of work. I have personally stated numerous times that I don't understand that stuff. I avoid approaching approach it, except when forced (this is the case for libdockapp, the fonts are a by-product). It is not me who should write those guidelines, and as for you you are just free to do whatever you want. > Please get together and write guidelines for legacy font packaging (with > scriptlets you actually understand). I've wrote it before and write it > here again: I have zip interest in legacy fonts. I recognise it's font I am not asking you to do anything, nor I am asking anything to anybody. I am well aware that everything in Fedora is volunteer. However, when there is something unclear or even that seems incorrect in the wiki, I have to raise the issue. > stuff some Fedora users need, so the Fonts SIG wiki will host any > properly-written legacy fonts policy. But I won't write it for you. I've I didn't asked that. I said that because it seems confusing to me to write things like mkfontdir, xfs, "cannot find default font 'fixed'", when it is not of any relevance in the latest fedora version. -- Pat From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Nov 3 11:41:03 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:41:03 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: [Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation In-Reply-To: <20071103111349.GE2663@free.fr> References: <8041.192.54.193.51.1193225938.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <471FFCBA.3070801@redhat.com> <1193333841.24738.8.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1194048581.23545.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1194079589.31248.1.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <20071103100510.GD2663@free.fr> <1194086761.31248.29.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <20071103111349.GE2663@free.fr> Message-ID: <1194090063.31248.40.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le samedi 03 novembre 2007 ? 12:13 +0100, Patrice Dumas a ?crit : > > Please get together and write guidelines for legacy font packaging (with > > scriptlets you actually understand). I've wrote it before and write it > > here again: I have zip interest in legacy fonts. I recognise it's font > > I am not asking you to do anything, nor I am asking anything to anybody. > I am well aware that everything in Fedora is volunteer. Well, *I* am asking because having legacy font packagers ask me the same questions all the time is getting old fast. You people chose to package legacy fonts. You get together to write your own policy (or heed the "don't do it" advice of people like Behdad and me). > However, when > there is something unclear or even that seems incorrect in the wiki, > I have to raise the issue. > > > stuff some Fedora users need, so the Fonts SIG wiki will host any > > properly-written legacy fonts policy. But I won't write it for you. I've > > I didn't asked that. I said that because it seems confusing to me to > write things like > mkfontdir, xfs, "cannot find default font 'fixed'", > when it is not of any relevance in the latest fedora version. ?I've tried to add even more keywords so people recognise the thing. It's difficult to point to it when most people do not know the official name, and nicknames vary from one person to the other. -- 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 tibbs at math.uh.edu Tue Nov 6 02:42:47 2007 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: 05 Nov 2007 20:42:47 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Unfinished business from last week's meeting Message-ID: We had an incomplete vote at the last meeting: * Specifying the root directory for LTSP as /var/lib/ltsp * Not yet accepted (4 - 0) * Voting for: abadger1999 rdieter spot tibbs Could other folks weigh in on this soon, so that I can pass this onto FESCo? Also, we decided that the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ServerProvides draft should be pushed via the feature process, and FESCo had no issues with this. However, my understanding is that Patrice does not want to do that. If that's the case, we seem to be at an impasse. How do we drive this issue forward? - J< From pertusus at free.fr Tue Nov 6 08:40:28 2007 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:40:28 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Unfinished business from last week's meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071106084028.GE2616@free.fr> On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 08:42:47PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > We had an incomplete vote at the last meeting: > > * Specifying the root directory for LTSP as /var/lib/ltsp > * Not yet accepted (4 - 0) I am not sure that this needs a ratification, nor a formal vote. I asked more to have advices, searching for a consensus, not a guideline. This satisfies me. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ServerProvides draft > should be pushed via the feature process, and FESCo had no issues with > this. However, my understanding is that Patrice does not want to do > that. If that's the case, we seem to be at an impasse. How do we I am ready to do that. I outlined my plan of action after feedbacks from people here on the bottom of the proposal, I will go through the features stuff now, since it seems to be needed. As a side note, and in my opinion, there is only one item that makes that change a feature, it is that it should appear in the release notes: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy#head-8b6a4d5204f2c24eea83756839550f625ed69b6b -- Pat From pertusus at free.fr Wed Nov 7 22:42:36 2007 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 23:42:36 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Unfinished business from last week's meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20071107224236.GB2558@free.fr> On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 08:42:47PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > Also, we decided that the > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ServerProvides draft > should be pushed via the feature process, and FESCo had no issues with I have done it, but, after some thinking (and tedious wiki editing), I think that it is an abuse of the Features stuff, for 2 reasons: * Features stuff sucks time, so it should be used when it is necessary, or the maintainer wants to. I didn't want to, and it is not useful for this feature. * Features stuff is for things that need to be communicated or for * important chnages. This feature is internal developpers only -- low user impact -- nobody outside of fedora cares -- I will do spec patches and fill bugs myself. If we begin to add a feature for each and every change in fedora the ratio of signal over noise in features will be very low. In my opinion, there are already too much features for F9 for efficient communication. It isn't problematic if the signal over noise is bad, if fedora people want to advertise their works. But in my case, I don't care, so it is better to leave place for those who really want to instead of forcing me. I am not objecting to Features as such, for example, Texlive, Kde4, RPM and Yum enhancements and Presto are good features in my opinion (major changes for the 2 first, and something that has been repeatedly discussed for the others). And, once again I don't object if people want to show what they will do for next release. Being forced to for unimportant features is not a good idea. -- Pat From dlutter at redhat.com Mon Nov 12 17:43:32 2007 From: dlutter at redhat.com (David Lutterkort) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:43:32 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Unfinished business from last week's meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1194889412.3861.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 20:42 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > We had an incomplete vote at the last meeting: > > * Specifying the root directory for LTSP as /var/lib/ltsp > * Not yet accepted (4 - 0) > * Voting for: abadger1999 rdieter spot tibbs +1 David From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Nov 13 17:14:27 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 12:14:27 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Reminder of meeting Message-ID: <1194974067.25279.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> This is a reminder to all FPC members (including myself): We will be meeting next Tuesday, November 20th, at 1700 UTC. Thanks in advance, ~spot From michel.sylvan at gmail.com Sat Nov 17 21:23:52 2007 From: michel.sylvan at gmail.com (Michel Salim) Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:23:52 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Reviewer needed (difficulty: easy!) Message-ID: It's a Scheme compiler that has minimal build dependency (gmp-devel), and bootstraps itself from an included image in about 10 seconds (not including the time it takes for the autotools to run). https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=367121 Thanks in advance, -- Michel Salim http://hircus.jaiku.com/ From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Nov 26 14:51:34 2007 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom "spot" Callaway) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 09:51:34 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: [Long] Do we need a font SIG ? In-Reply-To: <6148.192.54.193.51.1189770715.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <6148.192.54.193.51.1189770715.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1196088694.15604.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 13:51 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > 7. The font situation is bad enough we have a font exception to our > FLOSS rules > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-daa717ea096fa4d9cf7b9a49b5edb36e3bda3aac > [for example we ship Luxi even though its licensing forbids > modification, making it non-free > http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE11.html] Open a bug report. Let's start the process of having it removed in F9. > 8. There are efforts to drain the font licensing swamp and promote > FLOSS fonts (http://unifont.org/go_for_ofl/), they are aligned with > Fedora general objectives yet Fedora has totally ignored them so far > (cf Liberation licensing choices) Keep in mind that Liberation licensing was a Red Hat, Inc decision, not a Fedora decision. Also, we haven't totally ignored the OFL, since it is listed as the "preferred" font license on the Fedora licensing page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts ~spot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Nov 26 15:09:05 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:09:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: [Long] Do we need a font SIG ? Message-ID: <17874.192.54.193.53.1196089745.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Lun 26 novembre 2007 15:51, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a ?crit : > > On Fri, 2007-09-14 at 13:51 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> 7. The font situation is bad enough we have a font exception to our >> FLOSS rules >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-daa717ea096fa4d9cf7b9a49b5edb36e3bda3aac >> [for example we ship Luxi even though its licensing forbids >> modification, making it non-free >> http://www.xfree86.org/current/LICENSE11.html] > > Open a bug report. Let's start the process of having it removed in F9. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=317641 >> 8. There are efforts to drain the font licensing swamp and promote >> FLOSS fonts (http://unifont.org/go_for_ofl/), they are aligned with >> Fedora general objectives yet Fedora has totally ignored them so far >> (cf Liberation licensing choices) > > Keep in mind that Liberation licensing was a Red Hat, Inc decision, > not > a Fedora decision. > > Also, we haven't totally ignored the OFL, since it is listed as the > "preferred" font license on the Fedora licensing page: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts Wasn't the case when I wrote this :p Many thanks, -- Nicolas Mailhot From opensource at till.name Tue Nov 27 18:17:52 2007 From: opensource at till.name (Till Maas) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 19:17:52 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Wrong use of Backslash in Packaging Guidelines (libexecdir) Message-ID: <200711271918.13854.opensource@till.name> Aloas, at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-69ef16dbc0ecb520d4cc7bbd381038f23963e1fd there is written: | Packagers are highly encouraged to store libexecdir files in a | package-specific subdirectory of %{_libexecdir}, such | as %{_libexecdir}\%{name}. The last word should be: %{_libexecdir}/%{name} Regards, Till -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 827 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Nov 27 18:23:57 2007 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:23:57 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Wrong use of Backslash in Packaging Guidelines (libexecdir) In-Reply-To: <200711271918.13854.opensource@till.name> References: <200711271918.13854.opensource@till.name> Message-ID: <474C60BD.30404@math.unl.edu> Till Maas wrote: > Aloas, > > at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-69ef16dbc0ecb520d4cc7bbd381038f23963e1fd > there is written: > > | Packagers are highly encouraged to store libexecdir files in a > | package-specific subdirectory of %{_libexecdir}, such > | as %{_libexecdir}\%{name}. > > The last word should be: %{_libexecdir}/%{name} thanks, fixed (or will be if my wiki edit even finishes saving...) -- Rex