[Bug 1307238] Review Request: gdouros-avdira-fonts - A font based on
elements created by Demetrios Damilas (late 15th c.)
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307238
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #5)
> By running gnome-software --verbose I found that it cannot find some
> pixmap...
I'm not getting any error with --verbose and --local-filename, but I'm not
seeing a font preview either (f23). What does your error message say?
> You could create a separate package, but I don't see the point. For users it
> doesn't matter if the file comes from a separate package or from a
> subpackage, and it is quite a bit of work to create (and then regularly
> update) an extra package.
I would like to create a gdouros-textfonts metapackage (for Anaktoria,
Alexander, Aroania, Asea & Avdira) and it could be the one providing the
documentation. Would that have to go through a new package review? Information
regarding metapackages is scarce on the wiki.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
8 years, 2 months
[Bug 1307238] Review Request: gdouros-avdira-fonts - A font based on
elements created by Demetrios Damilas (late 15th c.)
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307238
--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> ---
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #4)
> (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2)
> > For the life of me I cannot get gnome-software to show the entry for this
> > file.
>
> I'm not sure how that's supposed to work either...
By running gnome-software --verbose I found that it cannot find some pixmap...
I tried to provide it, by copying from some other font package to a different
name, but for some reason this wouldn't work. If we don't figure it out, I'll
write to fedora-devel.
> In the current scheme of things the pdf is placed in
> /usr/share/doc/gdouros-*-fonts/. Should there be a new documentation path
> like /usr/share/doc/gdouros-textfonts/ (which would have to be hardcoded) or
> is it OK to just keep it in the proper place for the one from which it will
> be created? Would it be preferable to remove it from all of them and create
> a separate package?
Yes, I don't think that hardcoding is a problem, just use
%{_docdir}/gdouros-textfonts or whatever. I think using a generic name like
that makes it obvious that this documentation is not tied to any of the font
packages, but is shared.
You could create a separate package, but I don't see the point. For users it
doesn't matter if the file comes from a separate package or from a subpackage,
and it is quite a bit of work to create (and then regularly update) an extra
package.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
8 years, 2 months
[Bug 1307238] Review Request: gdouros-avdira-fonts - A font based on
elements created by Demetrios Damilas (late 15th c.)
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307238
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2)
> In the metainfo.xml file, it says <id>gdouros-aroania</id>.
I have fixed it in the source rpm.
> In the same file, the indentation is a bit wonky, why not make it indents
> 2-space?
I think I had used a metainfo file from another package as a template for all
my fonts. I will clean up the others as well in git.
> For the life of me I cannot get gnome-software to show the entry for this
> file.
I'm not sure how that's supposed to work either...
> There is one issue: all gdouros fonts have the same doc file, which is
> pretty hefty. I think you should create gdouros-fonts-doc subpackage from
> one of the font packages and simply Recommends it in the other
> gdourous-*-fonts packages. No need to install the same 1MB file multiple
> times.
In the current scheme of things the pdf is placed in
/usr/share/doc/gdouros-*-fonts/. Should there be a new documentation path like
/usr/share/doc/gdouros-textfonts/ (which would have to be hardcoded) or is it
OK to just keep it in the proper place for the one from which it will be
created? Would it be preferable to remove it from all of them and create a
separate package?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
8 years, 2 months
[Bug 1307238] Review Request: gdouros-avdira-fonts - A font based on
elements created by Demetrios Damilas (late 15th c.)
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307238
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> ---
In the metainfo.xml file, it says <id>gdouros-aroania</id>.
In the same file, the indentation is a bit wonky, why not make it indents
2-space?
For the life of me I cannot get gnome-software to show the entry for this file.
But it shows your other fonts without any trouble so I have no idea what is
wrong.
- license is acceptable
- packaging follows font guidelines afaict
- fedora-review is happy
- font displays fine in lowriter ;)
ttname.log
---->
rpms-unpacked/gdouros-avdira-fonts-6.31-1.fc24.noarch.rpm/usr/share/fonts/gdouros-avdira/Avdira.ttf
copyright notice (#0): Unicode Fonts for Ancient Scripts; George Douros; 2016
font family name (#1): Avdira
font subfamily name (#2): Regular
unique font identifier (#3): Avdira
full font name (#4): Avdira
version string (#5): Version 6.31
PostScript name (#6): Avdira
trademark information (#7): Avdira is not a merchandise.
<ttname.cli.TTNameCLI object at 0x7f47b8f8ac50>
There is one issue: all gdouros fonts have the same doc file, which is pretty
hefty. I think you should create gdouros-fonts-doc subpackage from one of the
font packages and simply Recommends it in the other gdourous-*-fonts packages.
No need to install the same 1MB file multiple times.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
8 years, 2 months
[Bug 1307238] Review Request: gdouros-avdira-fonts - A font based on
elements created by Demetrios Damilas (late 15th c.)
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1307238
Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproj
| |ect.org
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos(a)gmail.com> ---
A couple of days ago Mr. Douros released a new font in the "TextFonts" family,
Avdira. This family includes Alexander, Anaktoria, Aroania and Asea, all of
which I maintain.
The spec, metainfo and fontconfig files are all based on my previous work with
the other fonts.
I have performed all the tasks and checks outlined in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle .
The linked source rpm is from a successful scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12955667
I have also created a wiki page for the font:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Gdouros_Avdira_fonts
ttfcoverage reports the following about the font:
Alphabetic Presentation Forms: 7/80 (8.75%)
Ancient Greek Musical Notation: 70/80 (87.50%)
Ancient Greek Numbers: 77/80 (96.25%)
Ancient Symbols: 12/64 (18.75%)
Arrows: 7/112 (6.25%)
Basic Latin: 97/128 (75.78%)
Block Elements: 8/32 (25.00%)
Box Drawing: 40/128 (31.25%)
Byzantine Musical Symbols: 246/256 (96.09%)
Combining Diacritical Marks: 41/112 (36.61%)
Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement: 4/64 (6.25%)
Combining Half Marks: 4/16 (25.00%)
Currency Symbols: 23/48 (47.92%)
Cyrillic: 106/256 (41.41%)
Dingbats: 16/192 (8.33%)
General Punctuation: 65/112 (58.04%)
Geometric Shapes: 20/96 (20.83%)
Greek Extended: 233/256 (91.02%)
Greek and Coptic: 121/144 (84.03%)
IPA Extensions: 96/96 (100.00%)
Latin Extended Additional: 19/256 (7.42%)
Latin Extended-A: 128/128 (100.00%)
Latin Extended-B: 27/208 (12.98%)
Latin Extended-C: 1/32 (3.12%)
Latin-1 Supplement: 96/128 (75.00%)
Letterlike Symbols: 8/80 (10.00%)
Mathematical Operators: 25/256 (9.77%)
Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-A: 9/48 (18.75%)
Miscellaneous Mathematical Symbols-B: 1/128 (0.78%)
Miscellaneous Symbols: 21/256 (8.20%)
Miscellaneous Symbols and Arrows: 1/256 (0.39%)
Miscellaneous Technical: 18/256 (7.03%)
Number Forms: 16/64 (25.00%)
Spacing Modifier Letters: 13/80 (16.25%)
Specials: 2/16 (12.50%)
Superscripts and Subscripts: 29/48 (60.42%)
Supplemental Punctuation: 35/128 (27.34%)
Supplementary Private Use Area-A: 98/65536 (0.15%)
Variation Selectors: 4/16 (25.00%)
PS1: A user had messed with the new font template in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_description_template and I reverted their
changes. Could someone please check that everything is as it should be?
PS2: Once this font is accepted, could someone point me in the right direction
for making a group or a metapackage to install all of the "TextFonts" together?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
8 years, 2 months
[Bug 1306063] New: freetype-2.6.3 is available
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306063
Bug ID: 1306063
Summary: freetype-2.6.3 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: freetype
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: mkasik(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: behdad(a)fedoraproject.org,
fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org, mkasik(a)redhat.com
Latest upstream release: 2.6.3
Current version/release in rawhide: 2.6.2-2.fc24
URL: http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/freetype/
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
8 years, 2 months