4:35 p.m.
In the review of python-pydata-sphinx-theme
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1981997), the
fact that our FontAwesome font packages are on version 4.x came up.
That new package needs version 5.x. I tried to make it work with 4.x
... no luck.
I do not want to take over the existing fontawesome-fonts package, nor
do I want to be involved in porting anything from version 4.x to
version 5.x. I am willing, however, to maintain a
parallel-installable version 5.x of the fonts, so that applications
can migrate on their own schedules (with an eye to eventually
deprecating and/or removing the existing package). I have filed a
review request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1989300
It uses the name fontawesome-free-fonts for two reasons:
- To be different from the existing package name for parallel
installability; and
- To distinguish the Fedora package from the Pro version of the fonts.
I have two misgivings about this package and would appreciate some
input from the community on these points.
1. Does the name rationale make sense?
2. Do we actually need the web subpackage? The font guidelines say
NOT to package svg, woff, etc. versions of a font because modern
browsers can read the otf versions. On the other hand, the web
subpackage also contains JavaScript versions of the fonts (which
cannot be built from source using only Fedora packages, alas!). On
the gripping hand, the existing package has a web subpackage, and it
seems to be used (by 8 packages).
Thanks!
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
5:23 p.m.
On 8/2/21 2:35 PM, Jerry James wrote:
In the review of python-pydata-sphinx-theme
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1981997), the
fact that our FontAwesome font packages are on version 4.x came up.
That new package needs version 5.x. I tried to make it work with 4.x
... no luck.
I do not want to take over the existing fontawesome-fonts package, nor
do I want to be involved in porting anything from version 4.x to
version 5.x. I am willing, however, to maintain a
parallel-installable version 5.x of the fonts, so that applications
can migrate on their own schedules (with an eye to eventually
deprecating and/or removing the existing package).
Thanks for doing this!
4 and 5 (and 6) are not backward compatible. Glyphs are missing,
replaced, changed codepoints, etc... Not all things could be ported and
I don't believe we'll ever get rid of 4.
Good thing is that _some_ of the packages with `Requires:
fontawesome-fonts` already require v5 and work with v4 only partially.
Not so good thing is that someone need to go through about 30 packages
and update dependencies to `font(fontawesome)` and
`font(fontawesome5free)`. I started looking at the packages last month,
but got distracted with work and never finished. Can return to that in a
couple of weeks.
I have filed a review request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1989300
It uses the name fontawesome-free-fonts for two reasons:
- To be different from the existing package name for parallel
installability; and
- To distinguish the Fedora package from the Pro version of the fonts.
One potentially confusing thing is that FA5 consists of two fonts: Font
Awesome 5 Free and Font Awesome 5 Brands. fa-free-fonts could be
interpreted as containing only the former one.
Another is the whole parallel-installable thing and a need to guess
which package is 4 or 5 (and 6 in a not-so-distant future).
I'd suggest fontawesome5-fonts, or at least something with explicit
version in the package name.
I have two misgivings about this package and would appreciate some
input from the community on these points.
1. Does the name rationale make sense?
2. Do we actually need the web subpackage? The font guidelines say
NOT to package svg, woff, etc. versions of a font because modern
browsers can read the otf versions. On the other hand, the web
subpackage also contains JavaScript versions of the fonts (which
cannot be built from source using only Fedora packages, alas!). On
the gripping hand, the existing package has a web subpackage, and it
seems to be used (by 8 packages).
Thanks!
--
With best regards,
Aleksei Bavshin
5:57 p.m.
Hello Aleksei,
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 4:23 PM Aleksei Bavshin <alebastr89(a)gmail.com> wrote:
4 and 5 (and 6) are not backward compatible. Glyphs are missing,
replaced, changed codepoints, etc... Not all things could be ported and
I don't believe we'll ever get rid of 4.
It's good to have confirmation of the lack of compatibility between
versions. But ... darn!
Good thing is that _some_ of the packages with `Requires:
fontawesome-fonts` already require v5 and work with v4 only partially.
Not so good thing is that someone need to go through about 30 packages
and update dependencies to `font(fontawesome)` and
`font(fontawesome5free)`. I started looking at the packages last month,
but got distracted with work and never finished. Can return to that in a
couple of weeks.
Am I stepping on your toes with this? That is, had you already
started working on a v5 package? I don't want to get in your way if
so. On the other hand, if you haven't, would you like to comaintain
the one I'm working on?
One potentially confusing thing is that FA5 consists of two fonts:
Font
Awesome 5 Free and Font Awesome 5 Brands. fa-free-fonts could be
interpreted as containing only the former one.
Another is the whole parallel-installable thing and a need to guess
which package is 4 or 5 (and 6 in a not-so-distant future).
I'd suggest fontawesome5-fonts, or at least something with explicit
version in the package name.
Okay, that makes sense. I guess that means that I didn't handle the
subpackages correctly, then. I'll give this some thought. Thanks for
the input!
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
9:36 p.m.
Hello Jerry,
On 8/4/21 3:57 PM, Jerry James wrote:
Am I stepping on your toes with this? That is, had you already
started working on a v5 package? I don't want to get in your way if
so. On the other hand, if you haven't, would you like to comaintain
the one I'm working on?
No, I haven't, so feel free to continue.
Previous attempt to upgrade fontawesome wasn't successful (rhbz#1854348
if you haven't seen that already), so I was just trying to estimate the
magnitude of disaster :)
Fabio (@fale) did the aforementioned upgrade and could be more inclined
to comaintain fa5.
> One potentially confusing thing is that FA5 consists of two
fonts: Font
> Awesome 5 Free and Font Awesome 5 Brands. fa-free-fonts could be
> interpreted as containing only the former one.
> Another is the whole parallel-installable thing and a need to guess
> which package is 4 or 5 (and 6 in a not-so-distant future).
>
> I'd suggest fontawesome5-fonts, or at least something with explicit
> version in the package name.
Okay, that makes sense. I guess that means that I didn't handle the
subpackages correctly, then. I'll give this some thought. Thanks for
the input!
--
With best regards,
Aleksei Bavshin
12:38 a.m.
Aleksei Bavshin wrote:
4 and 5 (and 6) are not backward compatible. Glyphs are missing,
replaced, changed codepoints, etc... Not all things could be ported and
I don't believe we'll ever get rid of 4.
Good thing is that _some_ of the packages with `Requires:
fontawesome-fonts` already require v5 and work with v4 only partially.
There is also ForkAwesome, a fork of FontAwesome 4:
https://forkaweso.me/Fork-Awesome/
that some projects use.
Kevin Kofler
8:44 p.m.
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 5:35 PM Jerry James <loganjerry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In the review of python-pydata-sphinx-theme
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1981997), the
fact that our FontAwesome font packages are on version 4.x came up.
That new package needs version 5.x. I tried to make it work with 4.x
... no luck.
I do not want to take over the existing fontawesome-fonts package, nor
do I want to be involved in porting anything from version 4.x to
version 5.x. I am willing, however, to maintain a
parallel-installable version 5.x of the fonts, so that applications
can migrate on their own schedules (with an eye to eventually
deprecating and/or removing the existing package). I have filed a
review request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1989300
How sensible! This is how packages should be named, consistently and
simply. Unfortunately, the package does not match the name of the
tarball, nor of the tarballs over at pypi.org. Why not simply use the
pypi.org tarall name of "fontawesomefree" ?
It uses the name fontawesome-free-fonts for two reasons:
- To be different from the existing package name for parallel
installability; and
- To distinguish the Fedora package from the Pro version of the fonts.
What are the "Pro" versions called, or what is their tarball called?
> I have two misgivings about this package and would appreciate some
> input from the community on these points.
> 1. Does the name rationale make sense?
> 2. Do we actually need the web subpackage? The font guidelines say
> NOT to package svg, woff, etc. versions of a font because modern
> browsers can read the otf versions. On the other hand, the web
> subpackage also contains JavaScript versions of the fonts (which
> cannot be built from source using only Fedora packages, alas!). On
> the gripping hand, the existing package has a web subpackage, and it
> seems to be used (by 8 packages).
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Jerry James
> http://www.jamezone.org/
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
6:02 p.m.
Hello Nico,
On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 7:45 PM Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel(a)gmail.com> wrote:
How sensible! This is how packages should be named, consistently and
simply. Unfortunately, the package does not match the name of the
tarball, nor of the tarballs over at pypi.org. Why not simply use the
pypi.org tarall name of "fontawesomefree" ?
Wait .. there's a download at pypi.org? Why?
Oh, to make it easier to integrate into django projects. Hmmm. Okay,
I'll check out that pypi.org tarball and think about this. Aleksei
suggested having a 5 somewhere in the name, since version 6 is in
beta.
What are the "Pro" versions called, or what is their
tarball called?
That's a good question. I did not sign up for a trial version of
their Pro version, so I don't know what, ultimately, they hand out for
that. As for the name, it seems to be "Font Awesome Pro" vs. "Font
Awesome Free".
Thanks for the input!
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
6:31 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2021 at 5:02 PM Jerry James <loganjerry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Wait .. there's a download at pypi.org? Why?
Oh, to make it easier to integrate into django projects. Hmmm. Okay,
I'll check out that pypi.org tarball and think about this. Aleksei
suggested having a 5 somewhere in the name, since version 6 is in
beta.
The tarball available from pypi.org is just the contents of the
tarball from github wrapped in a python wheel. I don't think that
will be useful for a Fedora package, so I'm sticking with the github
tarball.
Based on Aleksei's feedback, I have changed the name of the package to
fontawesome5-fonts. Any other feedback is welcome, as is a reviewer:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1989300
Thanks,
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
1014
days inactive
1019
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Aleksei Bavshin -
Jerry James -
Kevin Kofler -
Nico Kadel-Garcia