January 2009 - fonts-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 466029] New: fonts.dir refers to non-existent .bdf files, breaking accesses

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: fonts.dir refers to non-existent .bdf files, breaking accesses https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466029 Summary: fonts.dir refers to non-existent .bdf files, breaking accesses Product: Fedora Version: 9 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: fonts-KOI8-R AssignedTo: than(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: goeran(a)uddeborg.se QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: than(a)redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Description of problem: The file /usr/share/fonts/KOI8-R/misc/fonts.dir contains two entries for each font, one for the pcf.gz file and one for a bdf file that isn't included in the package. Apparently, the presence of the bdf entry breaks accesses to these fonts. As an example, it contains: 9x15s.bdf -misc-fixed-medium-r-normal--15-140-75-75-c-90-koi8-ub 9x15s.pcf.gz -misc-fixed-medium-r-normal--15-140-75-75-c-90-koi8-ub Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): fonts-KOI8-R-1.0-10.fc8.noarch How reproducible: Every time Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install fonts-KOI8-R 2. xfd -fn 9x15 Actual results: Warning: Cannot convert string "9x15" to type FontStruct xfd: no font to display Expected results: A window with the font displayed. Additional info: The bug can be avoided by rerunning mkfontdir in /usr/share/fonts/KOI8-R/misc. (And trigger the X server to reread its font files.) But there is no RPM script or other automatic way this is done. It must be done "by hand" after installation by the system administrator. And after doing this, the package fails a verify check by RPM. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 9 months

1
13
0 / 0

[Bug 477331] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477331 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: asana-math-fonts AssignedTo: jonstanley(a)gmail.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: jonstanley(a)gmail.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com Blocks: 477044 Classification: Fedora After more than a month of consultation, feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved by FESCO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Package maintainers must now convert their packages in rawhide to the new templates. The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can serve as examples if the templates published in the fontpackages-devel package are not clear enough: ❄ andika-fonts ❄ apanov-heuristica-fonts ❄ bitstream-vera-fonts ❄ charis-fonts ❄ dejavu-fonts ❄ ecolier-court-fonts ❄ edrip-fonts ❄ gfs-ambrosia-fonts ❄ gfs-artemisia-fonts ❄ gfs-baskerville-fonts ❄ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ❄ gfs-bodoni-fonts ❄ gfs-complutum-fonts ❄ gfs-didot-classic-fonts ❄ gfs-didot-fonts ❄ gfs-eustace-fonts ❄ gfs-fleischman-fonts ❄ gfs-garaldus-fonts ❄ gfs-gazis-fonts ❄ gfs-jackson-fonts ❄ gfs-neohellenic-fonts ❄ gfs-nicefore-fonts ❄ gfs-olga-fonts ❄ gfs-porson-fonts ❄ gfs-solomos-fonts ❄ gfs-theokritos-fonts ❄ stix-fonts ❄ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts FPC and FESCO were not consulted on splitting or renaming packages, nevertheless the new templates make it fare easier to manage subpackages, so you're strongly encouraged to split your packages along font family lines. A mandatory rule about splitting will probably be submitted for approval before the F11 release. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 9 months

1
11
0 / 0

[Bug 477333] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477333 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: brettfont-fonts AssignedTo: jonstanley(a)gmail.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: jonstanley(a)gmail.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com Blocks: 477044 Classification: Fedora After more than a month of consultation, feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved by FESCO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Package maintainers must now convert their packages in rawhide to the new templates. The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can serve as examples if the templates published in the fontpackages-devel package are not clear enough: ❄ andika-fonts ❄ apanov-heuristica-fonts ❄ bitstream-vera-fonts ❄ charis-fonts ❄ dejavu-fonts ❄ ecolier-court-fonts ❄ edrip-fonts ❄ gfs-ambrosia-fonts ❄ gfs-artemisia-fonts ❄ gfs-baskerville-fonts ❄ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ❄ gfs-bodoni-fonts ❄ gfs-complutum-fonts ❄ gfs-didot-classic-fonts ❄ gfs-didot-fonts ❄ gfs-eustace-fonts ❄ gfs-fleischman-fonts ❄ gfs-garaldus-fonts ❄ gfs-gazis-fonts ❄ gfs-jackson-fonts ❄ gfs-neohellenic-fonts ❄ gfs-nicefore-fonts ❄ gfs-olga-fonts ❄ gfs-porson-fonts ❄ gfs-solomos-fonts ❄ gfs-theokritos-fonts ❄ stix-fonts ❄ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts FPC and FESCO were not consulted on splitting or renaming packages, nevertheless the new templates make it fare easier to manage subpackages, so you're strongly encouraged to split your packages along font family lines. A mandatory rule about splitting will probably be submitted for approval before the F11 release. Further information on fonts packaging changes will be published on fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 9 months

1
9
0 / 0

[Bug 477398] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477398 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: icelandic-fonts AssignedTo: jonstanley(a)gmail.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: jonstanley(a)gmail.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_font... - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 9 months

1
10
0 / 0

[Bug 477449] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477449 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: roadstencil-fonts AssignedTo: jonstanley(a)gmail.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: jonstanley(a)gmail.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_font... - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 9 months

1
10
0 / 0

[Bug 477459] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477459 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: sportrop-fonts AssignedTo: jonstanley(a)gmail.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: jonstanley(a)gmail.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_font... - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 9 months

1
10
0 / 0

[Bug 478332] New: Nimbus Mono L Bold Oblique is not really monospace

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Nimbus Mono L Bold Oblique is not really monospace https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478332 Summary: Nimbus Mono L Bold Oblique is not really monospace Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: urw-fonts AssignedTo: than(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: besfahbo(a)redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: than(a)redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Apparently glyph 227 (or maybe 226 according to fontforge) of /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n022024l.pfb has a width of 740 while all the other glyphs in the font have width 600. This causes fontconfig to mark the font as proportional instead of monospace. That then is causing other issues: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17493 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 9 months

1
8
0 / 0

[Bug 474514] New: file conflict on upgrading

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: file conflict on upgrading https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474514 Summary: file conflict on upgrading Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: dejavu-fonts AssignedTo: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net ReportedBy: tagoh(a)redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Description of problem: Transaction Check Error: file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansMono-Bold.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-mono-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansMono-BoldOblique.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-mono-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansMono-Oblique.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-mono-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansMono.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-mono-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerif-Bold.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerif.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerif-BoldItalic.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerif-Italic.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerifCondensed-Bold.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerifCondensed-BoldItalic.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerifCondensed-Italic.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSerifCondensed.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-serif-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans-Bold.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans-BoldOblique.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans-Oblique.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans-ExtraLight.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansCondensed-Bold.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansCondensed-BoldOblique.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansCondensed-Oblique.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch file /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSansCondensed.ttf from install of dejavu-fonts-sans-2.26-6.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): # rpm -qa | grep dejavu dejavu-fonts-2.26-2.fc10.noarch dejavu-fonts-experimental-2.26-2.fc10.noarch -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 10 months

1
10
0 / 0

[Bug 477486] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477486 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: xorg-x11-fonts AssignedTo: xgl-maint(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: xgl-maint(a)redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_font... - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 10 months

1
20
0 / 0

[Bug 477429] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477429 Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: myanmar3-unicode-fonts AssignedTo: mvaliyav(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: mvaliyav(a)redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_font... - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_... http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
12
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs January 2009