Re: [RFA] Font audit results for Fedora 12 (final)
by Nicolas Mailhot
Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 13:43 -0500, Neal Becker a écrit :
> What does this mean?
>
> I received one for libotf. Neither libotf, nor libotf-devel seem to
> ship any fonts.
As explained in the text of the message you're received libotf attempts
to access fonts through the core fonts backend which is bad
--
Nicolas Mailhot
14 years
Re: [RFA] Font audit results for Fedora 12 and 2009-11-22 fedora-devel
by Nicolas Mailhot
Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 12:54 -0600, Jon Ciesla a écrit :
>
> I question the taste of this remark. Was it really necessary to bring
> this up in such a public forum?
I guess this just reflect frustration in seing xine-ui adding new copies
of the same fonts months after months even though it is explicitely
demanded not to in packaging guidelines and it was pointed multiple
times whenever the script result were posted to this list this past
year.
You're right I should not have posted it this way.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
14 years
[RFA] Font audit results for Fedora 12 and 2009-11-22 fedora-devel
by Nicolas Mailhot
Hi,
With a little delay here are the font audit results for Fedora 12 and
2009-11-22 fedora-devel. I think I've taken into account all the
feedback I received since last run. More feedback is of course welcome
(except for the file size computation, I know it's broken, was not worth
re-doing a 7h test run to fix it).
Seeing some numbers go down would be nice.
Individual packagers should have received their personalized
notification some hours ago (some in duplicate, the first relay host I
used blacklisted me as a spammer sometime in the middle of the run so I
had to restart everything, sorry about that, will try to improve).
Some people asked me why I didn't go the bugzilla route: look at the
numbers, there's no way I can write a script smart enough to manage
hundreds of bugs with different states. And doing it manually alone
would be a nightmare.
Special mention goes to jussilehtola for xine-ui: not only he
managed to add 27 font files not packaged according to Fedora guidelines
during the F-12 cycle, but 14 are copies of the same font.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
14 years
Updated version of the Isabella font
by francis+fedora+fonts＠thibault.org
FYI, I've just released a minor update to the Isabella font, which
improves the characters ł and Ł (the diagonal strokes were too
thin). I see that the Fedora package is maintained by lyosnorezel, but
I can't find a way to contact him directly, so I'm hoping he's on this
list. When you get a chance, lyosnorezel, could you please grab the
updated version?
http://www.thibault.org/fonts/isabella/
Thanks!
--
/================================================================\
| John Stracke | http://www.thibault.org | HTML OK |
| François Thibault |-----------------------------------------|
| East Kingdom | Speak softly and carry an Illudium Q-32 |
| francis(a)thibault.org | Explosive Space Disintegrator. |
\================================================================/
14 years
tcpdf fonts
by Oron Peled
Hi,
I packaged TCEXAM (tcexam.org) for review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465159
One of the issues I (and the reviewer) have is that the
included TCPDF (tcpdf.org) application is using embedded fonts for
rendering the PDF.
As a result, I have several questions for the members of this list:
1. From a brief look, it seems the bundled fonts are free and included
in Fedora. How about the almohanad and ZarBold, anybody knows?
(here is the full list of font-names):
almohanad dejavusansmonoi freemonobi
dejavusans dejavuserif freemonoi
dejavusansb dejavuserifb freesans
dejavusansbi dejavuserifbi freesansb
dejavusanscondensed dejavuserifcondensed freesansbi
dejavusanscondensedb dejavuserifcondensedb freesansi
dejavusanscondensedbi dejavuserifcondensedbi freeserif
dejavusanscondensedi dejavuserifcondensedi freeserifb
dejavusansi dejavuserifi freeserifbi
dejavusansmono freemono freeserifi
dejavusansmonob freemonob ZarBold
dejavusansmonobi
2. Better substitutes? Defaults?
3. For use by tcpdf, the fonts are converted as described in:
http://www.tecnick.com/public/code/cp_dpage.php?aiocp_dp=tcpdf_fonts
a. One tools which is bundled is afm2pfm (and its inverse pfm2afm):
* The upstream of these tools:
- http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/fonts/utilities/pfm2afm/
- It is GPL
- Very old code, does not look maintained, but small.
* Are these tools of general interest for the font people?
Should we invest the time to clean up the code, etc?
* If we do not want/need them, what is the alternative method for
generating afm files from ttf fonts in Fedora. Can this method
be scripted?
b. Another bundled tool is ttf2ufm:
* Looks like a modified copy of ttf2pt1 which is packaged in Fedora.
* What are the difference? Maybe the current Fedora version includes
the functionality of ttf2ufm?
* If not, does anybody knows where did it come from? I only found
copies of this in TCPDF and in some old netscape sources.
* If packaging it is problematic, can the same task be done by other
tools packaged in Fedora?
4. While doing a search for this mail I found that moodle (packaged in
Fedora) bundles TCPDF (and the fonts). So it seems we have
a common problem... I will try to contact the maintainer.
Thank you for your time,
--
Oron Peled Voice: +972-4-8228492
oron(a)actcom.co.il http://users.actcom.co.il/~oron
"First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win." -- Gandhi
14 years
Fwd: Broken dependencies: wqy-zenhei-fonts
by Qianqian Fang
hi
I received "broken dependencies" warnings from build robot for all 3 wqy
fonts. I am wondering if this needs me to do anything to fix. I used the
spec template for single font for these packages. I don't see "sh"
explicitly called in the spec file.
Please let me know. thanks.
Qianqian
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <buildsys(a)fedoraproject.org>
Date: Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Subject: Broken dependencies: wqy-zenhei-fonts
To: wqy-zenhei-fonts-owner(a)fedoraproject.org
wqy-zenhei-fonts has broken dependencies in the development tree:
On ppc:
wqy-zenhei-fonts-0.8.38-3.fc12.noarch requires /bin/sh
wqy-zenhei-fonts-0.8.38-3.fc12.noarch requires /bin/sh
On ppc64:
wqy-zenhei-fonts-0.8.38-3.fc12.noarch requires /bin/sh
wqy-zenhei-fonts-0.8.38-3.fc12.noarch requires /bin/sh
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
14 years
Rpmlint does not like my license
by Igshaan Mesias
Hi Everyone
I've packaged the M+ collection of fonts. I've not yet submitted a
review because I am unsure about what to label the 'License' tag in spec
file given its authors have simply put the license as follows:
http://mplus-fonts.sourceforge.jp/mplus-outline-fonts/index-en.html#license
"These fonts are free softwares.
Unlimited permission is granted to use, copy, and distribute it, with or
without modification, either commercially and noncommercially.
THESE FONTS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY."
The following page notes the license as being "mplus", however, rpmlint
will not like this, so my question is, should I leave the 'License' tag
in the spec file as Mplus and let rpmlint moan, or do I change to
something it likes? if so what do I change it to?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Fonts
--
Igshaan Mesias <igshaan.mesias(a)gmail.com>
14 years
