[Fedora-packaging] Draft vote on Font Package Naming

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
Thu Jan 15 00:51:24 UTC 2009

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: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20090115/61fd1d8d/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list