October 2009 - fonts-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

rpms/fonttools/F-12 fonttools-as.patch, NONE, 1.1 fonttools.spec, 1.18, 1.19 fonttools-uni5.patch, 1.1, NONE

by Caolan McNamara

Author: caolanm Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/fonttools/F-12 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv32514/F-12 Modified Files: fonttools.spec Added Files: fonttools-as.patch Removed Files: fonttools-uni5.patch Log Message: Resolves: rhbz#525444 as is a reserved keyword in python fonttools-as.patch: ttProgram.py | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- NEW FILE fonttools-as.patch --- Index: Lib/fontTools/ttLib/tables/ttProgram.py =================================================================== --- Lib/fontTools/ttLib/tables/ttProgram.py (revision 562) +++ Lib/fontTools/ttLib/tables/ttProgram.py (revision 563) @@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ p = Program() p.fromBytecode(bc) - as = p.getAssembly() - p.fromAssembly(as) + asm = p.getAssembly() + p.fromAssembly(asm) print bc == p.getBytecode() Index: fonttools.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/fonttools/F-12/fonttools.spec,v retrieving revision 1.18 retrieving revision 1.19 diff -u -p -r1.18 -r1.19 --- fonttools.spec 24 Jul 2009 23:01:15 -0000 1.18 +++ fonttools.spec 2 Oct 2009 09:41:02 -0000 1.19 @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Name: fonttools Version: 2.2 -Release: 6%{?dist} +Release: 7%{?dist} Summary: A tool to convert True/OpenType fonts to XML and back Group: Development/Tools @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{ve BuildRequires: python-devel numpy Requires: numpy +Patch0: fonttools-as.patch + Provides: ttx = %{version}-%{release} %description @@ -25,6 +27,7 @@ TrueType and OpenType fonts to an XML-ba %prep %setup -q +%patch0 -p0 -b .as %{__sed} -i.nobang '1 d' Lib/fontTools/ttx.py %{__chmod} a-x LICENSE.txt @@ -70,6 +73,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %changelog +* Fri Oct 02 2009 Caolán McNamara <caolanm(a)redhat.com> - 2.2-7 +* Resolves: rhbz#525444 as is a reserved keyword in python + * Fri Jul 24 2009 Fedora Release Engineering <rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> - 2.2-6 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Mass_Rebuild --- fonttools-uni5.patch DELETED ---

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

rpms/fonttools/devel fonttools-as.patch, NONE, 1.1 fonttools.spec, 1.18, 1.19 fonttools-uni5.patch, 1.1, NONE

by Caolan McNamara

Author: caolanm Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/fonttools/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv32514/devel Modified Files: fonttools.spec Added Files: fonttools-as.patch Removed Files: fonttools-uni5.patch Log Message: Resolves: rhbz#525444 as is a reserved keyword in python fonttools-as.patch: ttProgram.py | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) --- NEW FILE fonttools-as.patch --- Index: Lib/fontTools/ttLib/tables/ttProgram.py =================================================================== --- Lib/fontTools/ttLib/tables/ttProgram.py (revision 562) +++ Lib/fontTools/ttLib/tables/ttProgram.py (revision 563) @@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ p = Program() p.fromBytecode(bc) - as = p.getAssembly() - p.fromAssembly(as) + asm = p.getAssembly() + p.fromAssembly(asm) print bc == p.getBytecode() Index: fonttools.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/fonttools/devel/fonttools.spec,v retrieving revision 1.18 retrieving revision 1.19 diff -u -p -r1.18 -r1.19 --- fonttools.spec 24 Jul 2009 23:01:15 -0000 1.18 +++ fonttools.spec 2 Oct 2009 09:41:03 -0000 1.19 @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Name: fonttools Version: 2.2 -Release: 6%{?dist} +Release: 7%{?dist} Summary: A tool to convert True/OpenType fonts to XML and back Group: Development/Tools @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{ve BuildRequires: python-devel numpy Requires: numpy +Patch0: fonttools-as.patch + Provides: ttx = %{version}-%{release} %description @@ -25,6 +27,7 @@ TrueType and OpenType fonts to an XML-ba %prep %setup -q +%patch0 -p0 -b .as %{__sed} -i.nobang '1 d' Lib/fontTools/ttx.py %{__chmod} a-x LICENSE.txt @@ -70,6 +73,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT %changelog +* Fri Oct 02 2009 Caolán McNamara <caolanm(a)redhat.com> - 2.2-7 +* Resolves: rhbz#525444 as is a reserved keyword in python + * Fri Jul 24 2009 Fedora Release Engineering <rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> - 2.2-6 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Mass_Rebuild --- fonttools-uni5.patch DELETED ---

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 526607] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607 --- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2009-10-02 01:59:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > Also, presumably the suffix -fonts stays regardless of whether the package > contains only one font or more. yes the suffix does not depend on the actual number of packaged files. That makes it safer if upstream adds a bold or italic later. -- 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.

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 526607] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607 --- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com> 2009-10-01 18:50:22 EDT --- Updated SRPM: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/fonts/oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423... This incorporates everything but the build-from-source/documentation issues, which is pending a response from upstream. -- 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.

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 526607] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607 --- Comment #8 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com> 2009-10-01 18:42:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > > 2. the author claims he created this font in fontforge, so it'd be a good idea > > to beg for the sfd file upstream and build the font from source in the rpm > I'll contact him and ask. > > > 3. there is no licensing trace in the ttf file, and web pages are unfortunately > > not future proof. Please ask upstream to release the font in a zip file that > > includes a detached .txt licensing file (or at least use the fontforge button > > that embeds the OFL text in the .ttf) > Ditto. OFLB's web contact form is currently broken, so I'm not sure whether the message I sent actually got through or not. I'm checking on IRC to see if anyone could fix it. > > 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font, 63-64 should be > > fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt) > Where's this file? I tried looking in fontpackages{,-devel} and > fontconfig{,-devel}. I was trying to go for as low a priority as possible, > since it looked that 50 is for a user override, and the number goes up from > there. Ignore my silliness here. I was typing fontpackage, not fontpackages, and grep swallowed the error. > Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a naming > convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf Also, presumably the suffix -fonts stays regardless of whether the package contains only one font or more. -- 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.

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 526607] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607 --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2009-10-01 18:27:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #4) > > 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font, 63-64 should be > > fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt) > Where's this file? I tried looking in fontpackages{,-devel} and > fontconfig{,-devel}. /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/fontconfig-priorities.txt fontpackages-devel > Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a naming > convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf Fontconfig does not care. I'd personnally remove the dalles_-_ stuff as it's junk added by the oflb upload process, but we have no hard convention one way or another PS meld or any other interactive diff tool is your friend to convert fontpackages-devel templates in actual spec/fontconfig files -- 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.

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 526633] Review Request: gargi-fonts - A Devanagari font

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526633 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |psatpute(a)redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai | |l.com) --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2009-10-01 18:21:57 EDT --- Anyway, thanks a lot for adding a new font package in the review pipe Appart from the CSS classification I can't really help you with, here is some review: 1. non LGC font ⇒ please use a priority ≥ 65 as per fontconfig-priorities.txt 2. please ask the lohit people what they think about this font. IMHO it is highly likely one of the lohit fonts shares a common ancestry with gargi (and in that case they should at least cross-alias each other) 3. Licensing should be GPLv2+ 4. (non blocking) please ask upstream to add the standard FSF GPL font exception to their licensing 5. (non blocking) description could use some meat Anyway, this package is mostly fine, except for the classification problem. NEEDINFO till this is resolved -- 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.

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 526607] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607 Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(michael.silvanus@ | |gmail.com) | --- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com> 2009-10-01 18:13:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Thank you for submitting a new font package for review. I hope you'll find the > process smooth and friendly, please do not hesitate to tell us what could be > made better if something bugs you. > > Anyway, for the review > > 1. we use oflb as prefix for openfontlibrary fonts Ah, thanks. That's why yum search openfont did not find anything of interest > 2. the author claims he created this font in fontforge, so it'd be a good idea > to beg for the sfd file upstream and build the font from source in the rpm I'll contact him and ask. > 3. there is no licensing trace in the ttf file, and web pages are unfortunately > not future proof. Please ask upstream to release the font in a zip file that > includes a detached .txt licensing file (or at least use the fontforge button > that embeds the OFL text in the .ttf) Ditto. > 4. IMHO this font should be classified as "fantasy" not "monospace" (see > fontconfig-generics.txt in fontpackages-devel) > > 5. Why do you reference Droid Sans Mono in your fontconfig file? If that's > because you cut and pasted from the Droid file, you have clean and documented > fontconfig templates in fontpackages-devel (in Em. Guilty as charged. I recently installed it, so when looking for a reference spec, I looked there. Somehow I skipped over the notice at the top of the packaging page. > /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/). The lastest rawhide version is probably the > best reference for anything ≥ F11 (I'll probably push it to F11 if I stop > finding things to improve every other week) I'm on Rawhide, so that's good. > 6. IMHO it is wrong to alias Chalkboard or Comic Sans MS if you're not sure > Smonohand is very close both in looks and metrics. The reason being looks only > are not sufficient, if the letters are different sizes documents written will > one of the other fonts will end up repaginated with smonohand. Usually when we > alias a font is much closer than just 'looks like it' Ah, OK. > > 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font, 63-64 should be > fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt) Where's this file? I tried looking in fontpackages{,-devel} and fontconfig{,-devel}. I was trying to go for as low a priority as possible, since it looked that 50 is for a user override, and the number goes up from there. > For a first try this is a nice package, you just need to spend some time > reading the little documentation we have in fontpackages-devel and you'll be > fine. > Will do that and reupload an updated spec later today, thanks for the feedback! Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a naming convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf -- 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.

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 526633] Review Request: gargi-fonts - A Devanagari font

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526633 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-i18n-bugs(a)redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2009-10-01 18:08:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > I'm not > sure if its a sans-serif or a fantasy, since I can't decide if this font can be > used for long professional texts. It's the Devanagari script, so could be used. Well, I don't read Devanagari at all, and the font has no OS/2 metadata, please ask upstream or the i18n for clarification (and as last resort use fantasy as that's the safest choice) -- 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.

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 526607] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607 --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2009-10-01 17:56:53 EDT --- 8. and I forgot: please use the font package name as .spec name -- 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.

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs October 2009