conf.avail, rpmlint and the FHS
by Nicolas Mailhot
Hi all,
When conf.avail was introduced in fontconfig we at Fedora mostly ignored
it and let font packages install their fontconfig rules directly in
conf.d
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsSpecTemplate
(the exception being the fontconfig package itself who perforce followed
the new conventions).
Recent events made me revisit this point and try to heal the rift
between fontconfig and font packages by following common conventions.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correct...
In the course of the examination of this guideline change proposal,
however, it was identified that conf.avail as currently designed causes
our rpmlint package sanity check tool to emit errors. Those errors were
ok for Behdad to ignore, but really not ok for general packaging
guidelines we want to put into newbie packager hands.
The core reason are that since we deploy policy through those fontconfig
files, we absolutely do not want users to change them (they're free to
un-reference the files in conf.d, or write their own fontconfig rules in
different files, but we instruct rpm to stomp on old versions of our
files on updates). Since we mark those files as non-modifiable (%config
and not %config(noreplace) in rpm speak) rpmlint considers them as data,
not configuration, and complains of their location under /etc.
After thinking a bit about it I feel rpmlint is right — since we don't
let users modify our fontconfig files they're not dynamic configuration,
just static data users can choose to activate or not.
We could of course add an exception in rpmlint just for conf.avail, but
I'd rather have fontconfig be fixed to follow more closely the FHS.
Exceptions ultimately pile on till you have a lot of cruft to clean up
which is not my definition of fun.
Can conf.avail and its contents be moved in /usr/share/something in the
next version of fontconfig?
See also:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
15 years, 5 months
[LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report
by Nicolas Mailhot
Hi all,
I haven't been too active on the SIG lately for lack of free time.
However others (who rock) have been busy working on fonts packages, so
here is a long delayed status update that will try to clear the backlog:
▪▪ General status
— We have 56 entries in the wishlist. Even counting entries the packager
forgot to recategorize (grrr) I think the wishlist is still growing
faster than we package fonts. More active packagers are obviously
needed.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Font_wishlist
— We have 58 entries in the packaged list.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Packaged_fonts
It is still nicely growing, and Fedora 9 level reviews like this one are
already obsolete
http://www.advogato.org/person/yosch/diary.html?start=4
— We've created 55 new packages since the start of the cycle (a wishlist
entry can translate in several packages). That's pretty awesome and way
past the 32 packages mark of the last report (and way past previous
Fedora cycle accomplishments). Special kuddos to Dennis Jang for
packaging the huge UN Korean font set (though he needs to update his
wiki pages). Others didn't attain the level of awesomeness of Dennis but
still did pretty well.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_inclusion_history
▪▪ Package status
▪▪▪ Packaged, with bugs still open:
— sportrop-fonts,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456345
— asana-math-fonts,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455153
— icelandic-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445261
⇒ Packagers please close your review bugs when the packaging is
finished.
▪▪▪ Packaged, but not referenced in Fedora 10 comps
— myanmar3-unicode-fonts
That was short :) most packagers seem to apply
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Comps_fonts_rules
without prodding on my part. Good job and please fix this one.
▪▪▪ Packaged, with wiki page not finalized or missing
— thibault-fonts-essays1743,
— thibault-fonts-isabella,
— thibault-fonts-rockets,
— thibault-fonts-staypuft,
— un-fonts,
— un-extra-fonts,
— icelandic-fonts
— smc-fonts
– darkgarden-fonts
– sportrop-fonts
— myanmar3-unicode-fonts
⇒ Please make sure each font package has a completed wiki page (Packaged
fonts category) that can be used by the docs team in release notes and
other documents
▪▪▪ Reviewed fonts waiting for packager action
— bitstream-vera-fonts (old FE-MERGE ticket, needs someone to help
Behdad co-maintain the package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225618
— sil-gentium-basic-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527
— hiran-perizia-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709
— cf-bonveno-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457955
— arabeyes-thabit-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139
— arabeyes-mothana-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462711
— alee-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466193
— hiran-rufscript-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467507
⇒ You know what you need to do
▪▪▪ Approved fonts not pushed yet
— unikurd-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457281
▪▪▪ Waiting for a reviewer
— heuristica-fonts (just cleared by FE-LEGAL)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452317
— oldstandard-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947
(not an easy font to package and not baked yet IMHO. I put some
comments in the bug but didn't start formal review, so this one is still
open)
⇒ We need some reviewers. I can't review every single font package out
there (especially since I'm not allowed to review my own).
In other news more interesting material was added to the SIG wiki and a
guideline change on fontconfig file location is still proceeding. And
the big F11 package renaming is still planned, I just don't have the
energy left to write about it.
I hope you liked this report. It took a lot of work to be written. If
you want some changes in the next edition, just ping me.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
15 years, 5 months
Provide SFD files for Unikurd Web
by Michal Nowak
Hello.
Could you please provide SFD files on the web, from which are TTF fonts
generated, in case you use fontforge?
It would be helpful to have them when creating package for Fedora.
Thank You,
Michal Nowak
15 years, 6 months
Re: contact kurditgroup
by Michal Nowak
ping?
On 09:57 Wed 16 Jul , Michal Nowak wrote:
> Hi Bardaqani,
>
> sorry for not being clear on this for the first time.
>
> The problem with GPL licensed font is that when you for example
> create PDF file (like a book) the you usually embed the font inside
> the document and then is anyone able to see it correct even
> when he does not have the Kurdish font in system (really good thing).
>
> But: When you have used GPL font (like Unikurd Web) inside PDF file
> then you must license the file/book as a GPL too! And that's the
> problem.
>
> Because of this there's special Font Exception which solves that
> problem.
>
> What would help us a lot:
>
> 1. Re-license the fonts from 'GPLv3' to 'GPLv3 + exception'.
> Here's the link to such text:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException
>
> 2. Write the text from the above link to the file gpl.txt inside
> unikurdweb.zip file.
>
>
> Solving points 1. and 2. will help us to distribute Your font in
> Fedora and thus helpfull for Kurdish writing/speaking users in
> general.
>
> Don't hesitate and write me in case of another questions or if
> you need any further guidance.
>
> Thank you,
> Michal
>
>
> On 23:43 Tue 15 Jul , bardaqani bardaqani wrote:
> > Dear Michal,
> > How can help you? should we out the license inside a PDF or what?
> > let me know
> >
> > cheers
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM, <mnowak(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > <div dir='rtl' style='direction: rtl; text-align: right' align='right'>.Hi,
> > > I wish I package some Unikurd fonts to Fedora Linux distribution<br />
> > > <br />
> > > The problem is actually the chosen license, which is plain GPLv3. Here you
> > > can read why is the license not so well usable for usage e.g. inside PDF.
> > > <br />
> > > <br />
> > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException <br />
> > > <br />
> > > Please reply to my email mnowak(a)redhat.com for further information or
> > > point me to someone whom can I talk to. <br />
> > > <br />
> > > Thank you for you time,<br />
> > > Michal Nowak<br />
> > > <br />
> > > Michal Nowak uid:0<br />
> > > <br />
> > > 2008-07-15<br />
> > > </div>
> > >
15 years, 6 months
