https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo? |

--- Comment #9 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net ---

(In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #3)

...

It does not matter if they are packaged as texlive subpackages or as independent projects as long as the template is applied. Also, whoever packages them needs to ship some fontconfig files that aliases the various past names of the fonts to the new one for backwards compat. Again there are templates to do so in fontpackages-devel.

That's another issue. Ideally, the good fonts should not only have the fontconfig files properly created for them, but AppStream files as well.

Yes, Appstream is yet another thing to have.

Note however that Appstream for fonts was heavily influenced by Debian, and Debian didn't rebase its font packaging around fontconfig as Fedora did a few years ago, so a lot of the "Need to do foo in appstream because fontconfig is insufficient or fonts are broken" do not really apply for Fedora.

If the font metadata is bad for example Fedora would prefer the packager to fix the font and patch the metadata rather than hide the brokenness under an Appstream overlay (which won't exist for apps that use the fonts anyway).