https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806272
Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> ---
Thanks for the report!
It is very weird to have anything depending on the common package, it only
contained some common documentation files and a shared directory.
I suppose some packages depended on it for the directory structure, which, as
you noted, is gone. It’s no use providing it, it does not exist anymore.
The new macros completely break the link between srpm name and directory
structure, everything is based on the rpm name. Some font upstreams can’t make
up their mind on how they release fonts, so the same font package may be
generated from different srpms as time passes. Sometimes they flip flop between
release styles depending on how releases upstream (sick, I know, complain to
upstreams, not to me).
DejaVu Sans font files now live in /usr/share/fonts/dejavu-sans-fonts/ DejaVu
Sans Mono in /usr/share/dejavu-sans-mono-fonts/ and so on, and there is no
shared structure between the subpackages anymore, you don’t need to depend on
anything except the exact font package you want.
No package should care about this except software which has not finished its
migration to fontconfig yet (fontconfig: 2003). fontconfig hides file path
changes for apps.
For major fonts like dejavu I try as packager to keep the paths stable within a
release. So F32 is now set (just before freeze, the whole review process took a
long time) and won’t change, and the new paths won’t be backported to F31.
non-fontconfig software can symlink or configure them wherever they want in
their private app space.
For other font families it’s way harder because upstreams can change file names
every minor release (and some do change very often). Software is supposed to
use solutions like fontconfig to avoid depending on exact file paths.
I’m a bit surprised about sdljava-demo because Java is supposed to use
fontconfig to resolve fonts nowadays. I suppose it’s a leftover from SUN times
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.