Hi,
They are required by those packages, true, but they can also be used separately in documents. That's why the package needs splitting : 1. users and packages that need the whole set can install all the subpackages (via a metapackage if necessary) 2. users and packages that only need a single font family install only the single subpackage
Especially since aliasing means some of those fonts have more side effects than others, installing the whole set all the time won't help anyone. (any Helvetica variant has *huge* side effects)
Regards,
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:51:24PM +0100, nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net wrote:
Hi,
They are required by those packages, true, but they can also be used separately in documents. That's why the package needs splitting :
- users and packages that need the whole set can install all the subpackages (via a metapackage if necessary)
- users and packages that only need a single font family install only the single subpackage
Especially since aliasing means some of those fonts have more side effects than others, installing the whole set all the time won't help anyone. (any Helvetica variant has *huge* side effects)
Eh, graphviz, graphicsmagic and ghostscript-core all require those fonts. So the full set is going to be pulled in as dependencies on pretty much any system, so the solution of not installing some of the fonts to avoid side effects does not work. IMHO, splitting into ~10 subpackages is just busy-work, pointless for a great majority of installations.
The original request for exception sounds entirely reasonable.
Zbyszek
Okay, so we have 2 sides here, each with it's own pros and cons. I don't want to start a flame war here though. :)
So who exactly is supposed to decide this? I don't want to start working on this, until it has been decided.
Best regards,
Dee'Kej
Nicolas,
what should be the structure of the package(s) if we would decide to go for the "meta-package" to include all the fonts?
If the meta-package should be some subpackage, it could cause more problems than solving them. Lets say we have the fonts divided into subpackage, and here's the scenario that can be quite common:
New user to Fedora wishes to install all the fonts of the 'urw-base35-fonts' package. So, he/she installs the package 'urw-base35-fonts', but it would only install license files. He/she thinks the fonts have been installed, but they actually are not creating confusion, and possibly generating unnecessary asking at forums/stack overflow/etc. and unnecessary frustration from using Fedora. This would be basically caused by following the FPG no matter the cost.
So, if I'm supposed to divide the font families into subpackages, here's the only structure that is IMHO viable to use and which I'm willing to "implement":
* 'urw-base35-fonts' - by itself an empty "meta" package that requires all its subpackages - if the user would install only this package, he/she would get all the fonts (and license files) * 'urw-base35-fonts-common' - an actual subpackage containing the license files - this would be required by 'urw-base35-fonts' and by all other subpackages * 'urw-base35-<font_family>-fonts' - subpackages that could be installed on their own, if user wishes just that font, and would require only the 'urw-base-fonts-common' in order to comply with licensing
In this way, we would have the font families divided to subpackages, as required by FPG, and if the user would want all of them, he/she would just install the "main" "meta package" 'urw-base35-fonts'. And maintainers who require all the urw-base35 fonts by their packages, they would need to just require the 'urw-base35-fonts' as well.
Is this solution okay with you guys? I think it should comply with the FPG, but maybe I overlooked something. If so, please let me know. Thanks.
Best regards,
David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] *Associate Software Engineer* *Brno, Czech Republic*
RED HAT | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. Every airline in the Fortune 500 relies on Red Hat. Find out why at Trusted | Red Hat http://www.redhat.com/en/about/trusted.
-
David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek