Grouping - explanation needed
by David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]
Hello guys,
I'm preparing update for URW++ core 35 fonts (used by ghostscript), and I
stumbled upon this section in FPG:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Grouping
The package will contain Postcript Type1 fonts (and Adobe Font Metrics),
therefore this point should apply:
* Font packages in a legacy format (not TTF or OTF) *MUST* be registered in
the *legacy-fonts* group.
Could somebody please explain this to me? What exactly is required from me?
Am I supposed to add Group: into specfile, or should I register to some
specific mailing list? Or something else?
Thanks in advance!
Regards,
David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]
*Associate Software Engineer*
*Brno, Czech Republic*
RED HAT | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED.
Every airline in the Fortune 500 relies on Red Hat.
Find out why at Trusted | Red Hat <http://www.redhat.com/en/about/trusted>.
7 years, 4 months
Re: urw-base35 fonts - request for exception
by Nicolas Mailhot
Hi,
They are required by those packages, true, but they can also be used separately in documents. That's why the package needs splitting :
1. users and packages that need the whole set can install all the subpackages (via a metapackage if necessary)
2. users and packages that only need a single font family install only the single subpackage
Especially since aliasing means some of those fonts have more side effects than others, installing the whole set all the time won't help anyone. (any Helvetica variant has *huge* side effects)
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
7 years, 4 months
urw-base35 fonts - request for exception
by David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]
Hello guys,
I'm preparing the rebase of URW fonts that we have currently in Fedora,
because they are outdated, and this it the list of packages depending on
them:
-----------------
GraphicsMagick
ghostscript-core
grace
graphviz
htmldoc
ipe
libwmf
mscgen
pdf-renderer
pokerth
root-core
synfig
xpdf
-----------------
Except that these fonts are outdated, there are other issues with
versioning of them ATM
(here's the discussion at devel list:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...
).
Based on that discussion, I will be preparing a new package
'urw-base35-fonts' (or 'urw-core35-fonts'), which will make the old
'urw-fonts' obsolete at some point.
I was reading the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy in
order the comply with FPG, and according to that I should split into ~10
subpackages.
However, these are all the so-called 'Core fonts' required by Postscript
level 2 (that we use in Fedora via ghostscript package):
> "In addition to font types, PostScript specifications also defined the
Core Font Set, which dictates the minimum number of fonts, and character
sets to be supported by each font.
... In PostScript Level 2, there are 35 fonts, which is a superset of
the 13 base fonts" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostScript_fonts#Core_Font_Set)
In other words, it does not make sense to create a subpackages for the font
families included in the urw-base35 (provided by ghostscript) fonts,
because all of them are required as a whole set by every package requiring
them (see above). Creating a subpackages for the font family would just
create additional and unnecessary overhead for maintainer that would like
to Require all of these fonts in their's package specfile.
And if you look at the current 'urw-fonts' package in Fedora, it also does
not contain any subpackages (most likely because of the reasons I wrote
above).
Therefore, I would like to hereby ask for a permission to not be forced to
create subpackages for 'urw-base35-fonts' package.
Thank you in advance for any feedback.
Best regards,
David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]
*Associate Software Engineer*
*Brno, Czech Republic*
RED HAT | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED.
Every airline in the Fortune 500 relies on Red Hat.
Find out why at Trusted | Red Hat <http://www.redhat.com/en/about/trusted>.
7 years, 4 months
