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@gmail.com ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: jonstanley@gmail.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list@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_fonts_i...
- 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_(20...) 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
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=477449
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |477044
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-12-20 19:56:58 EDT --- [Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.]
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 this 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_fonts_i...
— 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_(20...) – 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 (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please).
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 create 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 by their packager 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
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=477449
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-11 10:20:16 EDT --- To help packagers manage the transition to the new guidelines, we've published the following FAQ
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_other_packages_(FAQ)
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=477449
--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-01-14 13:37:54 EDT --- FPC approved those two additional guidelines recently, please take them into account if you need to create or update a fonts package or subpackage:
– 2009-01-14: naming http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_%282009-01...
— 2009-01-06: exact splitting rules http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_%...
(packagers that can drop font files and just depend on an existing font package are not impacted)
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=477449
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Please convert to new font |[roadstencil-fonts] Please |packaging guidelines |convert to new font | |packaging guidelines
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=477449
--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-02-18 14:32:49 EDT --- This is a reminder for all the packagers that still have bugs open about adapting to font packaging guidelines there is only one month left before Fedora 11 beta: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/11/Schedule
A week of this month will see the Fedora 11 mass rebuild, that will load the build farm: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild
As already converted packages showed it is quite possible to make mistakes during the conversion. Please make releng and QA happy and don't wait till the last minute to do your changes (avoid pre-beta panic). If possible start before the mass rebuild so we don't burn cycles on incorrect packages.
The PackageKit enhancements stated for Fedora 11 assume fonts and font-using packages are sane (basically respect packaging guidelines). It is quite possible that not-converted packages will interact with the F11 font autoinstall feature in "interesting" ways. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AutomaticFontInstallation
We don't want that
There is extensive documentation on the wiki and most of your questions have likely already been answered there. Please do read the FAQ before making more work for the support team by asking questions answered there. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29
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=477449
Jon Stanley jonstanley@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|11 |rawhide
--- Comment #6 from Jon Stanley jonstanley@gmail.com 2009-11-19 10:21:21 EDT --- Moving these to rawhide so bugzapper doesnt get em :)
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=477449
Parag pnemade@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pnemade@redhat.com Depends on| |615850 AssignedTo|jonstanley@gmail.com |pnemade@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=477449
Parag pnemade@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
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=477449
Bug 477449 depends on bug 615850, which changed state.
Bug 615850 Summary: Review Request: oflb-roadstencil-fonts - Roadstencil Fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615850
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
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=477449
Parag pnemade@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |oflb-roadstencil-fonts-1.0- | |9.fc14 Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #8 from Parag pnemade@redhat.com 2010-07-22 01:36:51 EDT --- Fixed in oflb-roadstencil-fonts-1.0-9.fc14
fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla