fonts November 2007

fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org

11 participants
61 discussions

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: [Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation
by Nicolas Mailhot 03 Nov '07

03 Nov '07

Le samedi 03 novembre 2007 à 11:05 +0100, Patrice Dumas a écrit : > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > Le vendredi 02 novembre 2007 à 20:09 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a écrit : > > > > > Yes, please no legacy font system crap. > > > > Documented in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy > > I don't exactly understand the full story, but what is exactly a core > font? Anything that uses the old server-side X backend. I didn't name it, blame XFree86 people ;) > It seems to me that mkfondir and xfs are not really needed > anymore. I have a package (libdockapp) that ships some bitmap fonts. Is > it the same? In this package I have a link in > /etc/X11/fontpath.d/ > linking to the font directory. That's the Core fonts XFDL backend, yes. > Is there an issue with this type of > fonts (called along luxel-ascii-06x09.pcf.gz seg7-ascii-05x07.pcf.gz)? The only "issue" as explained in the policy is the Core Fonts backend is pretty much unmaintained now, and got abandoned by XFree86 developpers because of numerous unfixable problems, so when you feed it new fonts you play with fire. You break something or trigger an old bug you get to keep the pieces because you won't find a lot of people ready to help. I'd have though Behdad's reaction was clear (and he's our leading font developer). > I run fc-cache in this package scriptlets, although I am not sure that > it is useful. I find it terrifying that every packager of legacy fonts I've talked with so far has no clue if the directives he puts in his spec actually work or why. It's always blind copy paste of old specs and if you copy enough stuff things sort-of work. Please get together and write guidelines for legacy font packaging (with scriptlets you actually understand). I've wrote it before and write it here again: I have zip interest in legacy fonts. I recognise it's font stuff some Fedora users need, so the Fonts SIG wiki will host any properly-written legacy fonts policy. But I won't write it for you. I've investigated this stuff enough years ago to decide it's a radioactive dead-end, if someone wants to keep risking it more power to him, but that's on his head. The general SIG policy as expressed in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy is that new font packagers should not even consider the legacy backend, people dead-set on using it can (that's why it's a SHOULD NOT not MUST NOT) but we tell them explicitely it's a very bad idea. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

[Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation
by Nicolas Mailhot 03 Nov '07

03 Nov '07

Hi all, While the current spec template in the Fonts SIG wiki (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/SpecTemplate) only documents common Fedora Fonts packaging practices, it's never been formally approved. I intend to submit it to FPC soon. If anyone on the fonts list object to part of this page or wants something clarified, please speak now Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

3 5

Mailing list changes, QA process
by Nicolas Mailhot 02 Nov '07

02 Nov '07

Hi all, By popular request the automated bug posting has been moved from this list to a separate list: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list Everyone interested in the bug posts, please subscribe to this new list. Also I've finally taken the time to write a very rough QA page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/QA It needs a lot of loving care by reviewers (you) but it's better than nothing. The very cool (at least I think it's very cool) problem table at the end of the page is filled by CC-ing the new bug list in the various issue trackers we depend on. That means if everyone plays the game and CCs the list when appropriate, we can get an accurate view of our font & text related issues without resorting to tracker bugs, chain-referencing bugzillas, trying to guess if upstream bug reports apply to Fedora, etc Please consider CC-ing the bugs list next time you report a problem. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

[Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla 01 Nov '07

01 Nov '07

1 0

[Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla 01 Nov '07

01 Nov '07

1 0

[Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla 01 Nov '07

01 Nov '07

1 0

[Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla 01 Nov '07

01 Nov '07

1 0

[Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla 01 Nov '07

01 Nov '07

1 0

[Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla 01 Nov '07

01 Nov '07

1 0

[Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla 01 Nov '07

01 Nov '07

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 ------- Additional Comments From ivazqueznet(a)gmail.com 2007-11-01 08:39 EST ------- stix-fonts-0.9-3.fc7.noarch.rpm: stix-fonts.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog stix-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license STIX License stix-fonts-0.9-3.fc7.src.rpm: stix-fonts.src: W: invalid-license STIX License stix-fonts-integrals-0.9-3.fc7.noarch.rpm: stix-fonts-integrals.noarch: W: no-documentation stix-fonts-integrals.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog stix-fonts-integrals.noarch: W: invalid-license STIX License stix-fonts-pua-0.9-3.fc7.noarch.rpm: stix-fonts-pua.noarch: W: no-documentation stix-fonts-pua.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog stix-fonts-pua.noarch: W: invalid-license STIX License stix-fonts-sizes-0.9-3.fc7.noarch.rpm: stix-fonts-sizes.noarch: W: no-documentation stix-fonts-sizes.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog stix-fonts-sizes.noarch: W: invalid-license STIX License stix-fonts-variants-0.9-3.fc7.noarch.rpm: stix-fonts-variants.noarch: W: no-documentation stix-fonts-variants.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog stix-fonts-variants.noarch: W: invalid-license STIX License So fix the version and those should be fine. "additional" is misspelled a few times. fontconfig should be used to backfill the glyphs from higher codepoints to lower (not a blocker). -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts November 2007