As some of you may know, after more than a month of consultation,
feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved
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:
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.
I've just noticed your Nepali fonts on
The Fedora Linux project, of which I am a community contributor, would
very much like to generalise support for all world languages in our free
Linux OS and its derivatives (from commercial Red Hat Entreprise Linux
to charity One Laptop Per Child). That includes Nepali.
If your intention is also to further Nepali support, we'd be very happy
to help you spread your fonts wide.
However, we are very careful about not misappropriating other people's
work, and only distribute material which licensing is clear and
compatible with our distribution model.
Please add some licensing information to your fonts so we can check if
that's the case here (the simplest system is to publish a .txt file
stating the license next to the font files, for example in the same zip
archive; adding the same information to the font metadata is also good
but a .txt file is simpler on users).
If you've reused any other font when creating yours (for example, to
cover the latin unicode blocks) please document it too (the usual way is
through a fontlog .txt file).
Our licensing constrains are explained here:
We've found out that the OFL or the GPL with the FSF font exception are
the best licenses to use with fonts currently. They're the most clear to
users, protect authors solidly, and do not have the awkward side-effects
of other licences.
If investigation shows our distribution models are incompatible, we'll
respect your decision, abandon the idea of integrating your fonts and
not bother you anymore.
Fedora Fonts Special Interest Group
Le Mar 30 décembre 2008 16:54, Alexandre Prokoudine a écrit :
> Somebody wanted a free comic font? :)
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.
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
The first font I am looking into is dustismo:
(Dustismo is currently shipped with kdeedu:
I have a first spec-file here:
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
There are two things I wasn't quite able figure out using the
1. Is it acceptable to ship a font with only the ttf and no other
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
Again quoting the spec-template:
> Font descriptions must detail information on the font style,
> Unicode coverage, and intended use to help users choose the
> right packages to install. ...
What other information could/should I add to the description
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
> > > Le Mar 30 décembre 2008 15:29, Sarantis Paskalis a écrit :
> > >> I am converting my font packages to the new guidelines and hit some
> > >> rpmlint warnings that appear to be template related.
Anyway I've queued the following FPC-side so they can rule one way or
the other. I'll just apply whatever they decide.
Le jeudi 01 janvier 2009 à 21:09 +0200, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
> On Tuesday 30 December 2008, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Sorry for hijacking the thread for something quite unrelated,
> but for me
> the "fontpackages" package name sounds pretty weird. I think similar
> packages are usually called foo-common; was "fonts-common" ever considered?
I rather like the way it expands in nice self-explanatory
fontpackages-filesystem and fontpackages-devel binary packages. It has
some consistency with fontconfig (which felt strange at first when it
was introduced too).
Also, I'd rather avoid any name with the fonts- or -fonts affix as those
denote past and present font packages and this package has not fonts at
all inside it.
Anyway, the project was originally named rpmfonts, and then during
review people asked for a name change (various abandonned proposals:
fonts-rpm, fonts, etc). So it was already renamed once. Since the
package name translates in a fedorahosted project name, a FAS group
name, is used in the templates which have already been applied to more
than 30 packages, is used in wiki documentation, I'm not thrilled at the
idea of doing another renaming. But I will do it if people want to and
someone finds an awesome new name. I'm not convinced fonts-common is
such a name :p
Happy new year,