[Fedora-packaging] Re: [Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation

[Patrice Dumas]

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