----- Mail original ----- De: "Parag N(पराग़)"

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com wrote:

Hi,

I'd like to maintain/co-maintain PT Serif[1] and PT Mono[2] fonts by paratype. Would it be better to include them in the existing PT Sans[3] fonts package - incorporate in the same spec as multiple packages, or as individual specs?

Here's the altered spec file[4] and srpm[5] combining all 3 paratype fonts. (Note the hack in %prep phase due to source packages containing same file names). What do you think?

|We can solve this by either one of following solution |1) Rename this package paratype-pt-sans-fonts to paratype-pt-fonts and |include all 3 types sans, serif, mono in subpackages. | OR |2) Add individual packages, add new package paratype-pt-serif-fonts |and paratype-pt-mono-fonts. | |Send an email to paratype-pt-sans-fonts package owner and get his |advice on this update issue.

I don't have any strong opinion as long as different families (sans, serif, monospace, etc) end up in different binary packages (wish the app install people could read the specs they were pointed to and understand what a family means for fonts instead of inventing new non standard rules). However if the fonts are not published in the same archive by the foundry it's usually easier to maintain several simple source packages rather than a single mega src.rpm no one really understands.

Beware that while PT fonts have a nice design and Paratype is pretty much the reference foundry for Russian cyrillic, it also took liberties with unicode last time I looked at it (not sure if everything has been moved to PUA or if they still export non-standard codepoints).

Regards,

On 17 November 2014 15:11, Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com wrote:

----- Original Message ----- | Hi, | | On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar | rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com wrote: | > Hi, | > | > I'd like to maintain/co-maintain PT Serif[1] and PT Mono[2] fonts by | > paratype. Would it be better to include them in the existing PT | > Sans[3] fonts package - incorporate in the same spec as multiple | > packages, or as individual specs? | > | > Here's the altered spec file[4] and srpm[5] combining all 3 paratype | > fonts. (Note the hack in %prep phase due to source packages containing | > same file names). What do you think? | > | | We can solve this by either one of following solution | 1) Rename this package paratype-pt-sans-fonts to paratype-pt-fonts and | include all 3 types sans, serif, mono in subpackages. | OR | 2) Add individual packages, add new package paratype-pt-serif-fonts | and paratype-pt-mono-fonts.

If upstream ships the archive for them separately, 2) is the way to go for packaging according to our font packging policy.

+1

Regards, Pravin Satpute

Hi Rajeesh,

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com wrote:

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 7:49 PM, Nicolas Spalinger nicolas_spalinger@sil.org wrote:

...

On 11/16/2014 05:22 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:

...

Hi,

I'd like to maintain/co-maintain PT Serif[1] and PT Mono[2] fonts by paratype. Would it be better to include them in the existing PT Sans[3] fonts package - incorporate in the same spec as multiple packages, or as individual specs?

Here's the altered spec file[4] and srpm[5] combining all 3 paratype fonts. (Note the hack in %prep phase due to source packages containing same file names). What do you think?

[1] http://www.paratype.com/uni/public/PTSerif.zip [2] http://www.paratype.com/uni/public/PTMono.zip

Thanks for taking care of packaging these fonts!

BTW, I suspect you want http://www.fontstock.com/public/PTSerifOFL.zip http://www.fontstock.com/public/PTMonoOFL.zip instead of the ones with Paratype's very own incompatible foundry-specific license.

The links are not prominently displayed but the .zip files are still there.

Thank you all for the inputs, greatly helpful. As Nicolas Mahilot also suggested, I will open separate review requests for PT Serif and PT Mono fonts and use the OFL source.

nim, how did you check for Unicode codepoint correctness in the fonts?

I don't get what you want here exactly but to check the coverage of scripts in the fonts I use fontaine command on the binary font file.

Regards, Parag.

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com wrote:

...

...

Thank you all for the inputs, greatly helpful. As Nicolas Mahilot also suggested, I will open separate review requests for PT Serif and PT Mono fonts and use the OFL source.

I have opened two review requests. Reviews and comments appreciated.

PT Serif: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165299 PT Mono: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165300

Thanks all, especially Parag, for the review, comments and help. Both Paratype PT Serif and Mono fonts are now built for f21/f22.