On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 04:16:27PM +0530, Akira TAGOH wrote:
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Matthew Miller
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:44:05PM +0530, Akira TAGOH wrote:
>> All of fonts is supposed to have an information page for their fonts
>> at wiki based on the template according to the package
>> lifecycle. however some of them doesn't have. so just tried to pick
>> them up and inform you to get one there.
> Are they? From the lifecycle page you link, that seems to be there to
> enable the packaging of the font in the first place, not meant to be
> long-term documentation. If it _is_ meant to be long-term
> documentation, that should be clarified somewhere. Who is the audience
> for this documentation?
That could be. as some of the wiki pages contains the sample
rendering, that should definitely be helpful for the end users too to
see how it looks like. unfortunately not available everything. we
could improve it.
For the audience, I don't know.. maybe Nicolas Mailhot?
I think we should consider getting rid of this requirement. Updating
wiki pages is quite a bit of work, and we have better mechanisms to
advertise stuff to users that didn't exist a few years ago. Apart from
the manual effort, the problem with wiki pages is that they tend to
get out of date pretty quickly enough to be out-of-date to often to be
really trustworthy. Instead, I think it'd be better to spend the
effort on making gnome software support fonts even better and to improve
the appdata files for fonts to make them "shine" in gnome-software.
This would be
a) less effort (a few minutes to create an appdata file when initially
packaging the font, very little ongoing effort, metadata is automatically
updated on package updates),
b) actually more useful for users (you get a live list, click "install"
on the font you like, instead of going from a wiki page to the command
I attached a screenshot from gnome-software-3.26.1-3.fc27.x86_64 for a
random font. This _is_ already pretty good, but it'd be nice to get rid
of the "No screenshot provided" thing. Why would gnome-software show that?
It could only useful for developers, but fonts actually don't need a
screenshot, and the space could be used to show more text...
Also, most fonts don't have good descriptions in the appdata files.
_This_ is something that requires font maintainer input.
/cc Richard Hughes
PS. The screenshots also at https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/gnome-software-font.png
in case the attachments don't get through.
> If it's supposed to be for end users (and that's a great goal!), I
> think the new docs site would be better than the wiki.
Sure. yes, I like it. that depends what sort of information we provide
though, the wiki pages can be easily outdated if noone maintains. so
maybe nice to have the sort of web apps or any infrastructure working
at the background to generate information from the packages and so on.
well, we could do that with wiki even though.
> If it's for contributors and packagers, wouldn't it be better to have
> the documentation in a README.md in dist-git, next to the spec file?
> That way, it'd show up at (for example)
> Matthew Miller
> Fedora Project Leader
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
fonts mailing list -- fonts(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to fonts-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org