2:12 a.m.
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 09:29:51PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[...]
Example:
devel/hunky-fonts/hunky-fonts.spec
Conflicts: fontconfig < 2.3.93
There's no comment that explains this. Can we please require packagers
to explain such unusual things in the spec file?
Either it's superfluous Conflicts information (overuse of an RPM feature)
or at some point in time the package really conflicted with Core's
fontconfig. In that case, ouch.
The same conflict applies to all font packages. Its root is here
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-January/msg00918.html
(A newer version of fontconfig did not create .font-cache-1 or
.font-cache-2 in the home directories, so ghosting of those files was
removed. The introduction of the Conflict came instead of Requires: th
e newer fontconfig). The spec file change was copy-pasted from one font
package to most (all?) others. I suspect the correct thing to do was to
add a Requires: fontconfig >= 2.3.93 instead of the Conflicts:.
Is that correct?
Thanks,
-- Sarantis
4:35 a.m.
New subject: Fedora Alternatives (Re: [fab] build service)
Le Lun 13 novembre 2006 09:12, Sarantis Paskalis a écrit :
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 09:29:51PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> [...]
>
> Example:
>
> devel/hunky-fonts/hunky-fonts.spec
>
> Conflicts: fontconfig < 2.3.93
>
> There's no comment that explains this. Can we please require packagers
> to explain such unusual things in the spec file?
>
> Either it's superfluous Conflicts information (overuse of an RPM
> feature)
> or at some point in time the package really conflicted with Core's
> fontconfig. In that case, ouch.
The same conflict applies to all font packages. Its root is here
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-January/msg00918.html
That's one reason but not the only one, font systems are fun.
The introduction of the Conflict came instead of Requires: th
e newer fontconfig). The spec file change was copy-pasted from one font
package to most (all?) others.
Probably from my dejavu-fonts spec
I suspect the correct thing to do was to
add a Requires: fontconfig >= 2.3.93 instead of the Conflicts:.
Is that correct?
No. We don't want font packages to depend on fontconfig. However if
fontconfig is installed it better be a version compatible with the
fontconfig stuff the font package does (ghosting of cache files is one
thing, another is the conf files we drop in /etc/fonts/conf.d - I have no
idea how an older fontconfig would interpret the new syntax and frankly I
don't want to test it).
The conflict should be no problem as a font package should never conflict
with the fontconfig version of the release it's pushed for. It's only a
safety should a system update its fontconfig package without updating the
font packages at the same time.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
11:26 a.m.
New subject: Fedora Alternatives (Re: [fab] build service)
Dnia 11/13/2006 11:35 AM, Użytkownik Nicolas Mailhot napisał:
> The introduction of the Conflict came instead of Requires: th
> e newer fontconfig). The spec file change was copy-pasted from one font
> package to most (all?) others.
Probably from my dejavu-fonts spec
Yes, you're right. :) I've copied this line from your package spec file.
Regards,
Dawid
--
^_*
6395
days inactive
6395
days old
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dawid Gajownik -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Sarantis Paskalis