Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: A bit over-enthusiastic splitting
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468618
Summary: A bit over-enthusiastic splitting Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: un-core-fonts AssignedTo: smallvil@get9.net ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: petersen@redhat.com, smallvil@get9.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com Blocks: 438944 Classification: Fedora
While splitting font packages is generally good, separating regular and bold faces of the same font in different packages is a tad over the top.
Please keep batang and batang bold in the same package (reiterate for other un core fonts)
(at the same time, it's awesome you've managed to package a beast like the un fonts given all the problems you had to solve)
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=468618
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-10-26 15:29:52 EDT --- (and same for light when it's available like for dinaru)
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=468618
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2008-10-27 22:41:15 EDT --- Do you think we should make an exception for dotum though since it will pull in another 2.5MB for all users?
4.6M un-core-fonts-dotum-1.0.2-0.6.080608.fc10.noarch.rpm 2.5M un-core-fonts-dotumbold-1.0.2-0.6.080608.fc10.noarch.rpm
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=468618
--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-10-27 23:45:10 EDT --- I don't like exceptions much, you end up removing them later generally. And I tend to believe that anyone who's actually interested in dotum will want the bold too.
I suppose dotum is a special case because want to install korean support for everyone by default, even for people who didn't ask for it (but is it really ok to provide korean without bold when we have it available?). If we're that short of space for F10 you can make it an exception, but IMHO it will end up in the default install set in a few releases anyway.
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=468618
--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-11-09 16:22:12 EDT --- BTW if the problem is that the current macros used in this package want to take a single font file as argument, then the subpackaging macro I wrote in dejavu yesterday could be used instead.
I must admit I was thinking very hard about the un font packages when I wrote them.
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=468618
Bug Zapper fedora-triage-list@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |10
--- Comment #5 from Bug Zapper fedora-triage-list@redhat.com 2008-11-25 23:16:17 EDT ---
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle. Changing version to '10'.
More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-06-25 23:48:44 EDT --- Actually it is worse that that since currently the main packages also contain the bold (and light) fonts...
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=468618
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|smallvil@get9.net |petersen@redhat.com
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=468618
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|10 |rawhide Summary|A bit over-enthusiastic |over-enthusiastic |splitting |subpackaging
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=468618
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-06-26 02:25:17 EDT --- Should be fixed in 1.0.2-0.9.080608.
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=468618
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org