On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
<nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote:
You can pass those upstream, it does not necessarily use the same
tools as
us. Fedora tests often catch things upstream is not aware of (mostly,
fontconfig coverage or you-only-need-two-more-glyphs to fulfill xx
locale).
I'll collect the results from every font we already have plus the ones
I intend to package and I'll send them upstream. Hopefully he'll know
what to do with them.
> I tried to figure out what was the cause of the error, but
> I did not reach any solid conclusion. What is the problem? Is it the
> %doc part of the file, the metadata/fontconfig files or all of them
> together?
At a guess that's the new xml metadata that didn't exist when the scripts
were written. Try without it and if it passes someone needs to write a
patch to repo-font-audit to whitelist it
(the reason the test exists is that lots of packages used to hide fonts in
private directories, so other apps did not seen them, users complained of
lack of fonts, and packagers forgot to check the licensing of those
files).
> That got me worried so, I decided to run a check against the other
> gdouros fonts [6]. Of the seven fonts, repo-font-audit managed to
> check only three of them as it threw some error messages as soon as it
> started [7]. I looked around for the same errors and I found only a
> bug report in
cpan.org [8] about ttfcoverage trying to divide by zero.
> It was closed as irrelevant. Should I file a bug report for that?
Yes, it's a bug in ttfcoverage (it should not crash), but likely in the
font too (unfortunately TEX fonts sometimes contain terrible warts TEX
users workaround in macros, but they still need fixing for use in other
apps and in modern TEX engines that behave more and more like normal apps
on the font side).
So that means two bug reports against repo-font-audit, one concerning
metadata files and the other one for ttfcoverage.
> And on a slightly different topic, is it absolutely required to
create
> a wiki page for a font package, before it is accepted for inclusion?
It's not a lot of work (mostly cut & pasting + some table filling), and
that gives you a central place to check font state in Fedora instead of
trawling repos and mailing lists to find out which fonts are in and what
people would like to see packaged.
Can I bother you when I get around to editing the relevant wiki pages?
I'm not that confident I can provide all the information that is
requested.
Thank you for taking the time to clear things up.
Best Regards,
Alex