Le Mar 30 décembre 2008 16:37, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
Le Mar 30 décembre 2008 15:29, Sarantis Paskalis a écrit :
Hello,
Hi,
Thank you for adapting your packages and providing feedback!
I am converting my font packages to the new guidelines and hit some rpmlint warnings that appear to be template related. Specifically, I followed the /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec from fontpackages-devel that creates absolute symlinks between /etc/fonts/conf.d/$font.conf and /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/$font.conf rpmlint moans about the absolute symlink and wants a relative one. I don't really have an opinion about that and could not find any fedora policy on this one [1].
I didn't find a simple (for me and packagers) way to create relative symlinks here. Individual packages are not supposed to know the values of the directory macros since FPC asked for them in part to hide future value changes from individual packagers.
drat, should have read your link before commenting. I'm not sure how ok it is to add a dep to symlinks for fontpackages-devel. It looks harmless enough, but is this package even in all our spins?
I suppose if I change the templates to use the symlinks command to avoid the rpmlint warning, I need to notify FPC at least (even if it's a minor change, it's still a guidelines change)
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 04:44:26PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Mar 30 décembre 2008 16:37, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
Le Mar 30 décembre 2008 15:29, Sarantis Paskalis a écrit :
Hello,
Hi,
Thank you for adapting your packages and providing feedback!
I am converting my font packages to the new guidelines and hit some rpmlint warnings that appear to be template related. Specifically, I followed the /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec from fontpackages-devel that creates absolute symlinks between /etc/fonts/conf.d/$font.conf and /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/$font.conf rpmlint moans about the absolute symlink and wants a relative one. I don't really have an opinion about that and could not find any fedora policy on this one [1].
I didn't find a simple (for me and packagers) way to create relative symlinks here. Individual packages are not supposed to know the values of the directory macros since FPC asked for them in part to hide future value changes from individual packagers.
drat, should have read your link before commenting. I'm not sure how ok it is to add a dep to symlinks for fontpackages-devel. It looks harmless enough, but is this package even in all our spins?
Just for completeness, the link in question is http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/25
I suppose if I change the templates to use the symlinks command to avoid the rpmlint warning, I need to notify FPC at least (even if it's a minor change, it's still a guidelines change)
-- Sarantis
Le Mar 30 décembre 2008 15:29, Sarantis Paskalis a écrit :
I am converting my font packages to the new guidelines and hit some rpmlint warnings that appear to be template related.
Anyway I've queued the following FPC-side so they can rule one way or the other. I'll just apply whatever they decide.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Absolute_symlinks_in_fonts_tem...)
Regards,
On Tuesday 30 December 2008, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: [...]
Sorry for hijacking the thread for something quite unrelated, but for me the "fontpackages" package name sounds pretty weird. I think similar packages are usually called foo-common; was "fonts-common" ever considered?
Le jeudi 01 janvier 2009 à 21:09 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
On Tuesday 30 December 2008, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: [...]
Hi
Sorry for hijacking the thread for something quite unrelated,
np
but for me the "fontpackages" package name sounds pretty weird. I think similar packages are usually called foo-common; was "fonts-common" ever considered?
I rather like the way it expands in nice self-explanatory fontpackages-filesystem and fontpackages-devel binary packages. It has some consistency with fontconfig (which felt strange at first when it was introduced too).
Also, I'd rather avoid any name with the fonts- or -fonts affix as those denote past and present font packages and this package has not fonts at all inside it.
Anyway, the project was originally named rpmfonts, and then during review people asked for a name change (various abandonned proposals: fonts-rpm, fonts, etc). So it was already renamed once. Since the package name translates in a fedorahosted project name, a FAS group name, is used in the templates which have already been applied to more than 30 packages, is used in wiki documentation, I'm not thrilled at the idea of doing another renaming. But I will do it if people want to and someone finds an awesome new name. I'm not convinced fonts-common is such a name :p
Happy new year,
On Friday 02 January 2009, you wrote:
Le jeudi 01 janvier 2009 à 21:09 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
but for me the "fontpackages" package name sounds pretty weird. I think similar packages are usually called foo-common; was "fonts-common" ever considered?
I rather like the way it expands in nice self-explanatory fontpackages-filesystem and fontpackages-devel binary packages.
Oops, sorry, I hadn't noticed that there's no main package. -filesystem and -devel don't sound bad/odd at all - the scenario I would have found quite weird would have been if one would for some reason explicitly install a package called fontpackages and get no font packages installed.
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org