Re: Questions about packaging CYKLOP font

Le jeudi 07 janvier 2010 à 11:28 -0500, TK009 a écrit : Hail brave font packager GUST people come from a TEX background. I suspect cyclop was created through a complex process starting from metafont sources followed by convertion to other formats. In an ideal world this process would be replayed by our srpm so anyone willing could tweak the initial metafont file and change the font like the authors. However, this is all speculation on my part, Cyclop creators didn't document their creation process anywhere I know. It's probably better to start packaging the files they did publish, and ask *very* *politely* how they created them and if it would be possible to replay the technical parts. They don't understand the GPL so "source" vocabulary will be meaningless to them. As specified in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Package_layout_for_fonts you're supposed to group fonts of the same family in the same (sub)package, and split fonts of different families in different (sub)packages The family part of a font name is anything that do not specifies width, weight or slant. Canonical values for width, weight and slant have been specified by microsoft in their WWS whitepaper http://blogs.msdn.com/text/attachment/2249036.ashx (Microsoft and Adobe are the two companies behind the OpenType spec) Unfortunately many fonts do not respect this spec, and put bits that belong to font style in the font family name, or the reverse. When that is the case you're supposed to package according to the naming the font author should have used, and ask him to fix its files. I've tried to explain this in http://nim.fedorapeople.org/Understanding%20fonts%20and%20fontconfig.tar.gz (need to finish the slides and publish them properly) Since GUST members understand technical font aspects, (if not legal aspects), I'm pretty sure their naming is sane. -- Nicolas Mailhot