Hi, 2010/7/18 Hans de Goede <hdegoede(a)redhat.com&gt;: > Hi, > > On 07/18/2010 11:51 AM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 6:33 AM, Kevin Fenzi&lt;kevin(a)scrye.com&gt;  wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 23:35:26 +0200 >>> Sven Lankes&lt;sven(a)lank.es&gt;  wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 10:09:37AM +0100, Paul Flo Williams wrote: >>>> >>>>> I imagine that Nicholas raised this problem while doing his periodic >>>>> fonts-incorrectly-packaged-in-non-font-package checks. The request >>>>> to separate out the fonts from poker3d-data has been long since >>>>> closed WONTFIX: >>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477443 >>>> >>>> I just went through all bugs blocking F11-new-font-rules that have >>>> been closed recently through the bugzapper EOL procedure and reopened >>>> those which are clearly still valid. >>>> >>>> A rather large number of packages never had a single reply from one of >>>> the maintainers. >>> >>> Sad. ;( >>> >>>> Do we have any provenpackages who volunteer to be CCed on bugs that >>>> have patches attached? (Not that there currently are any such bugs >>>> with patches but reopening I have found some low hanging fruits which >>>> I'm planning to look at in the future). >>> >>> We should be careful here... if the packagers are really gone and no >>> longer maintaining we should orphan the packages so people can take >>> them over, not keep drive by maintaining them without being very >>> involved. :) IMHO. >>> >> >> I think those packages whose spec's need to be re-written should block >> F14Target and volunteer's are welcome to post patches/fix them. >> Recently I come across few packages which need to follow current fonts >> packaging guidelines. I start working on those but found >> openfontlibrary.org is almost broken and for those fonts it is >> upstream. I am now searching those fonts if have some other publisher. >> If i will find any other foundry then will use and import it in Fedora >> otherwise my suggestion will be to retire those packages whose >> upstream are gone now. > > Unless I read the thread wrong openfontlibrary.org will return. Also I see > no reason to drop packages just because there upstream is gone.   Current fonts guidelines asks for using foundry name in font package. If based on initial import where upstream URL is no longer exists but its allowed to use that and use oflb as foundry name then I am more willing to work on it.   Please tell me if this is ok. If you think its ok I will submit new, to be renamed packages for package review. If this is not ok then let those bugs be open forever..... > Esp. for > something like a font. If its a nice font and reasonably complete what sort > of maintenance would you expect from upstream ? Here problem is not maintainer required from upstream but should foundry oflb is ok to use for a dead URL? I mean once Rembrand had > finished the Night Watch, it was well finished. I don't see how a font is > much different. > I don't understand this... Parag. > Regards, > > Hans >

Hi, On 07/18/2010 12:06 PM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: > Hi, > > 2010/7/18 Hans de Goede&lt;hdegoede(a)redhat.com&gt;: >>> I think those packages whose spec's need to be re-written should block >>> F14Target and volunteer's are welcome to post patches/fix them. >>> Recently I come across few packages which need to follow current fonts >>> packaging guidelines. I start working on those but found >>> openfontlibrary.org is almost broken and for those fonts it is >>> upstream. I am now searching those fonts if have some other publisher. >>> If i will find any other foundry then will use and import it in Fedora >>> otherwise my suggestion will be to retire those packages whose >>> upstream are gone now. >> >> Unless I read the thread wrong openfontlibrary.org will return. Also I see >> no reason to drop packages just because there upstream is gone. >     Current fonts guidelines asks for using foundry name in font > package. If based on initial import where upstream URL is no longer > exists but its allowed to use that and use oflb as foundry name then I > am more willing to work on it. Ok, so this is about the rule of having a foundry name in the font package name. I think that it is fine to keep using oflb as foundry name for fonts which were initially packaged as such. Esp as the openfontlibrary.org site will return to normal operations in some time AFAIK.  >     Please tell me if this is ok. If you think its ok I will submit  > new, to be renamed packages for package review.  > If this is not ok then let those bugs be open forever.....  > I don't think that the fonts need to be renamed again and again and again, lets just pick a name and stick with it. Note that I'm not really a font guy though.

I assume we need to include foundry to make sure that we can make difference between various publisher sites that provide same font.

Le dimanche 18 juillet 2010 à 12:49 +0200, Hans de Goede a écrit : > Hi, > > On 07/18/2010 12:06 PM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > 2010/7/18 Hans de Goede&lt;hdegoede(a)redhat.com&gt;: > >>> I think those packages whose spec's need to be re-written should block > >>> F14Target and volunteer's are welcome to post patches/fix them. > >>> Recently I come across few packages which need to follow current fonts > >>> packaging guidelines. I start working on those but found > >>> openfontlibrary.org is almost broken and for those fonts it is > >>> upstream. I am now searching those fonts if have some other publisher. > >>> If i will find any other foundry then will use and import it in Fedora > >>> otherwise my suggestion will be to retire those packages whose > >>> upstream are gone now. > >> > >> Unless I read the thread wrong openfontlibrary.org will return. Also I see > >> no reason to drop packages just because there upstream is gone. > >     Current fonts guidelines asks for using foundry name in font > > package. If based on initial import where upstream URL is no longer > > exists but its allowed to use that and use oflb as foundry name then I > > am more willing to work on it. Sure, there's no need to change it, unless the author permanently moved to something else. > Ok, so this is about the rule of having a foundry name in the font package > name. I think that it is fine to keep using oflb as foundry name for fonts > which were initially packaged as such. Esp as the openfontlibrary.org site > will return to normal operations in some time AFAIK. The OFLB soerely needs some stability, but it's very young yet, so :( >  >     Please tell me if this is ok. If you think its ok I will submit >  > new, to be renamed packages for package review. >  > If this is not ok then let those bugs be open forever..... >  > > > I don't think that the fonts need to be renamed again and again and again, > lets just pick a name and stick with it. Note that I'm not really a font guy > though. Changing hosting is work so most fonts have stable homes. One just needs to be careful to identify the canonical one the first time a font is packaged (some have dozens of secondary web sites)