New font packaging guidelines
by Nicolas Mailhot
Dear all,
As some of you may know, after more than a month of consultation,
feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved
by FESCO.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_...
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
New font packages in review must now conform to the new templates, and
current packages be converted in rawhide by their maintainers. To track
the conversion progress I will henceforth file tickets in bugzilla.
The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can
serve as examples if the templates in the fontpackages-devel package are
not clear enough:
❄ 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
Note that the discussed renames and splits have not been submitted for
approval yet (I'm waiting for the rename process to be clarified), so
the current change is purely technical.
Nevertheless the new templates make creation of sub-packages
considerably easier and safer, so I advice packagers to perform a split
by family now if they don't mind. There was a broad consensus for the
splitting in general, and the only thing that remains to be clarified
before submission FPC-side is the wording of the few exceptions.
Sincerely,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
14 years, 8 months
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] comic fonts :)
by Nicolas Mailhot
Le Mar 30 décembre 2008 16:54, Alexandre Prokoudine a écrit :
>
> OK,
>
> Somebody wanted a free comic font? :)
>
> http://serafettin.sourceforge.net/
BTW oget asked recently on IRC where the GPL-ing of TSCu_Comic font
occurred and where it had been traced, so I'd be interested in this
info. That would be useful to add in the fontlog.
Also if someone has current contacts for past contributors, it would
be nice to get the font exception added to the license.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
14 years, 9 months
First font-package
by Sven Lankes
Hi,
I have started to look into font-packaging as the kde-sig needs a couple
of fonts that are currently shipped with e.g. kdeedu and kdelibs
packaged separately.
The first font I am looking into is dustismo:
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dustimo_fonts)
(Dustismo is currently shipped with kdeedu:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477406)
I have a first spec-file here:
http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SPECS/dustismo.spec
http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SRPM/dustismo-fonts-20030207-1.fc11.src.rpm
As my knowledge about fonts is basically zero I'd like to get some
feedback on the spec-file before submitting this for a package review.
The wishlist wiki-page mentions "GPL with font exception" for this font
- but the font-exception is not in the license that is shipped with the
fonts (GPLv2+) so this is probably wrong.
The last update of this font was in 2003 - it is currently only
available on 3rd-party font-sites. There doesn't seem to be an
'upstream' anymore.
There are two things I wasn't quite able figure out using the
fontsig-wiki-pages:
1. Is it acceptable to ship a font with only the ttf and no other
'source'?
The spec template has this:
> Building fonts from sources is always preferred. For GPLed or LGPLed
> fonts this is required by the license.
2. I do need some help with filling the description with something
meaningful
Again quoting the spec-template:
> Font descriptions must detail information on the font style,
> Unicode coverage, and intended use[3] to help users choose the
> right packages to install. ...
What other information could/should I add to the description
3. fontconfig
My feeling is that I don't need any fontconfig-files for a font like
this. Am I right?
Thanks for your feedback.
--
sven === jabber/xmpp: sven(a)lankes.net
14 years, 9 months
fontpackages template warnings
by Sarantis Paskalis
Hello,
I am converting my font packages to the new guidelines and hit some
rpmlint warnings that appear to be template related. Specifically, I
followed the /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec from
fontpackages-devel that creates absolute symlinks between
/etc/fonts/conf.d/$font.conf and
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/$font.conf
rpmlint moans about the absolute symlink and wants a relative one. I
don't really have an opinion about that and could not find any fedora
policy on this one [1].
The other thing is a minor patch that distinguishes variable from macro
in the same template (attached)
Thanks,
Sarantis
[1] symlink rpmlint ticket
http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/25
14 years, 9 months
Re: New font packaging guidelines
by Nicolas Mailhot
Le Mar 23 décembre 2008 01:53, Jeff Spaleta a écrit :
> python-matplotlib is carrying its own fonts around, which I didn't
> catch. My bad. So thanks for doing the auto-review.
We don't have any check to catch non-fonts packages that bundle fonts,
even though we know that causes problems later, so really we are a bit
under-tooled here :(
Anyway, I'd like to remind every packager that decides to drop the TTF
fonts he shipped in his non-font-package, that's it's a good idea to
add a dep on the appropriate DejaVu family, and not on freefonts or
bitstream vera (unless the package has specific style or metric
requirements).
DejaVu is in the default install set, the others aren't, so adding
them as deps will result in more resource use mirror and user side
(also freefonts will probably be renamed/reorganised before the end of
the cycle).
In Rawhide dejavu has been split in three packages so you only need to
depend on the font family you actually need, not the full set.
Sincerely,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
14 years, 9 months
Re: New font packaging guidelines
by Nicolas Mailhot
Le lundi 22 décembre 2008 à 15:53 -0900, Jeff Spaleta a écrit :
> One thing, can you look over the fonts included in matplotlib and see
> if there are any fonts which are not-duplicates of existing packaged
> fonts?
Sure, just post the font names or filenames here or in the bug
(otherwise google and repoquery are your friends)
--
Nicolas Mailhot
14 years, 9 months
Help with new font packaging guidelines (choosing font family)
by Marcin Garski
Hi,
I'm trying to convert my packages (jomolhari-fonts,
tibetan-machine-uni-fonts) to new font packaging guidelines.
I've encounter one problem that stops me from filling all guidelines.
I don't know the right font family (serif, sans serif, other?) for both
fonts, so I can't create a fontconf files.
How can I find/known this font family (both fonts represents Tibetan
script which I don't know)?
BTW. If both fonts are installed TMU is selected as a primary font for
displaying Dzongkha text, is there a way to set fontconfig to prefer
Jomolhari when dealing with Dzongkha text and TMU when displaying
Tibetan text (Jomolhari is better for Dzongkha text and TMU for Tibetan
text).
--
Best regards
Marcin Garski
14 years, 9 months
Font package splitting clarification
by Nicolas Mailhot
[Drat. I *knew* I had forgotten to spam one list]
Hi all,
Since the discussion on font package splitting rules seems to be
exhausted, and since no one stepped up with an obviously better proposal
than mine, I've queued the following FPC-side:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rule...
I've tried to integrate all the exceptions that were brought up during
the discussion and that were consensual, and to separate the rules from
their rationale (so packagers in a hurry only need to read the first
part). I've ended up with four simple master rules that should not be
open to interpretation.
Best regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
14 years, 9 months
Font package splitting clarification
by Nicolas Mailhot
Hi all,
Since the discussion on font package splitting rules seems to be
exhausted, and since no one stepped up with an obviously better proposal
than mine, I've queued the following FPC-side:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rule...
I've tried to integrate all the exceptions that were brought up during
the discussion and that were consensual, and to separate the rules from
their rationale (so packagers in a hurry only need to read the first
part). I've ended up with four simple master rules that should not be
open to interpretation.
Best regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
14 years, 9 months
