Re: [LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report
by Nicolas Mailhot
Le Mar 18 novembre 2008 11:33, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
>
> On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 11:11 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>> Le Mar 18 novembre 2008 09:32, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
>> Please review
>> http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/rpm-fonts-1.8-1.fc11.src.rpm
>> and the other files in this directory, and propose ameliorations
>> before we make it the backbone of our Fedora 11 font packages.
> I will vote against this proposal and this package.
>
> Rationale:
> All these macros do is causing further pollution of the rpm macros,
> break many details (try rpmbuild --define '_datadir /opt/foo' and add
> further cross distro-portability issues (Consider RHEL3 or rpm's from
> other distros).
>
> May be you recall the issues with Mandrake / Mandriva macros and with
> SuSE-macros, now you seem to be wanting to conduct Fedora into the
> same direction.
What I've seen last year is:
1. packagers reinvent those independently (usually with bugs), so
there's no drawbacks and lots of benefits in providing them a clean
audited centralised version instead.
2. when you push too much logic in individual packages, this logic is
not updated (when fc-cache arguments change)
3. the current guidelines are not easy enough for most packagers.
If you don't agree with my solution to those problems please be
constructive and propose another better one.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
15 years, 5 months
Re: [LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report
by Nicolas Mailhot
Le Mar 18 novembre 2008 09:32, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
>
> On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 03:08 -0500, Jens Petersen wrote:
>> > As I wrote before, I don't think we could win a lot by automating.
>>
>> Well I tend to agree now: a good set of templates and rpm macros
>> seems the right way to go.
> No, rpm macros are the road to ruin a distro.
>
> Once they are used in a distro, they impose major portability issues
> and are close to impossible to get rid.
Unfortunately, deploying fonts requires scriptlets to manage
thefontconfig cache, font packages are often huge and need splitting,
and sriplets + subpackages = boom without a minimal automation.
Please review
http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/rpm-fonts-1.8-1.fc11.src.rpm
and the other files in this directory, and propose ameliorations
before we make it the backbone of our Fedora 11 font packages.
--
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
Font Questions
by Dave Feustel
Is there any difference between using "iso" and ISO" in font names?
How can I tell whether font ISO-8859-1 is installed or not?
If iso-8859-1 is not installed (which seems to be the case since
email specifying that iso-8859-1 is used do not display all character
codes as glyphs (in mutt Mutt 1.5.18 (2008-05-17) ) ), from where
do I download the font and how do I install it.
Thanks Very Much.
15 years, 5 months
Re: Fwd: Gnu FreeFont -- new release
by Nicolas Mailhot
Le Lun 15 septembre 2008 04:37, Jens Petersen a écrit :
> I am not really familiar with this font, but since it covers quite a
> number of scripts it looks interesting at least, so forwarding for any
> comments? Would it be useful to include in Fedora?
I think it's already in fedora in the "freefont" package, but this
package needs to be updated and reworked to conform to guidelines
freefont has a poor reputation in font design circles, where many
people consider the project was too quick to add glyphs that were not
always of the best quality.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
15 years, 5 months
Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
by Nicolas Mailhot
Hi,
If you've received this message directly (not via a list) you're
concerned by the font package changes proposed for Fedora 11:
— the changes touch one of your packages or
— the changes touch/need one component you're lead on (comps, packagedb,
rpm…)
Please reply to the fedora fonts list however to keep the discussion in
a single place.
The complete list of proposed changes is published there
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes
All is open to discussion, and it's on a wiki page, so don't hesitate to
complete/correct it.
This list is pretty ambitious and requires buy-in by many people to be
executed properly. Not to mention that the Fedora 11 cycle will start
soon. Please do respond to the list, stating:
— your requests and comments (if any)
— if you will change your packages along those lines for Fedora 11
— if you will allow other packagers to change your packages in your
stead
— if you totally object to one part of the proposal, and why
Unless there is strong opposition I will apply those changes to my own
packages (and to vera and liberation if their maintainers are ok with
it). However, to be effective, other packagers must change their
packages too.
▶▶▶ Short proposal summary:
▶ package renames, to fix the naming discrepancies that have crept in
with the repository growth
(different packagers followed different conventions)
▶ package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora
users
▶ new comps groups, to group related fonts together
(gfs fonts, sil fonts, etc)
▶ reminder of the ongoing fontconfig guidelines change
(still waiting for fontconfig upstream to comment on)
▶ new packaging template and macros
(to put in rpm? some other place?)
▶▶▶ Rationale:
▶ help spins and users
Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias,
without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a
valid setup.
▶ help packagers and package reviewers
Inconsistent repository and fuzzy rules mean package reviews drag on
while the kinks are ironed out, which is not fun at all for everyone
involved. Much better to have clear conventions packagers can identify
before hitting review stage.
▶▶▶ Proof of concept:
Dejavu has been used to proof the concepts in rawhide (cf the wiki page)
I hope those proposals will be agreeable to everyone.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
15 years, 5 months
Re: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
by Nicolas Mailhot
Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 à 12:10 -0500, Bill Nottingham a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net) said:
> > ▶ package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora
> > users
>
> ...
> > ▶ help spins and users
> >
> > Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias,
> > without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a
> > valid setup.
>
> This sounds like severe overkill. If they want different scripts, why
> not just adjust their fontconfig configuration? Realistically, I can't
> think of an example where we'd want to ship dejavu for one script but
> not another. Do you have one?
Actually dejavu is a bad example because everyone wants it. I only did
it because it's a complex and complete package that could stress the
macros (also because it's my main package).
But for the other font packages, it's very common to want only one font
in a collection (for example all our artists use one mgopen font but not
the others, we only need one font installed by default for each script
to support it in the default install, etc).
Also that makes dynamic font installation possible: when a document or
web page references a font you can just install the corresponding
package and not drag megs of unrelated fonts that just happened to be
released by the same entity.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
15 years, 5 months
