New font packaging guidelines

[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_(20...)
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,

[Sarantis Paskalis]

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 05:13:35PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> 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_(20...)
> 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.

Hello,

Two of my packages are TeX fonts (tetex-font-kerkis and 
tetex-font-cm-lgc), which contain .pfb files (postscript type 1 from 
what I could find out).

My questions are:
- Should I place the .pfb files   ( e.g.  
  /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/kerkis/Kerkis-Bold.pfb)
  in /usr/share/fonts/kerkis/ and symlink them to their old (original) 
  place or the reverse.
- What about the other TeX relevant files?  Should I do something with 
  them or are they indifferent to the rest of the system.

If there is an example TeX font package switched to the new format, it 
is not obvious from the package names.

Please advise.

Thanks,

-- Sarantis

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le lundi 22 décembre 2008 à 14:56 +0200, Sarantis Paskalis a écrit :
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 05:13:35PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:

Hi Sarantis,
> > 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.
> Two of my packages are TeX fonts (tetex-font-kerkis and 
> tetex-font-cm-lgc), which contain .pfb files (postscript type 1 from 
> what I could find out).

We've known for quite a	while TEX had a problem with fonts installation
and licensing. However repoquery unearthed many non-font packages that
shipped fonts (not only TEX packages, and a lot more than I
expected :(), so I'm going to write a general answer if you permit.

1. The target font management stack on Fedora is fontconfig. It has
“near universal” support including emacs-side¹.

2. If your app is fontconfig-aware you just need to package the fonts it
needs as a normal guidelines-compliant font package. Fontconfig will
then locate them for your app no matter on how the font files are named
or renamed.

3. If your app is not fontconfig-aware, you should politely remind your
upstream it has a problem.

4. If your app is not fontconfig-aware, and there is no solution
upstream in the short term, you still need to package the fonts using
the normal Fedora fonts packaging guidelines. And then either patch your
app to look for its fonts in the guidelines-compliant location or
package a set of symlinks pointing to this location.

5. The preferred way to package fonts is to locate their original font
upstream and package the original font release in a separate fonts-only
package.

6. However, for fonts that are bundled in a software package with no
other form of release, or fonts which have some additional non-standard
stuff bundled with them (such as TEX packages), I don't think anyone
will complain too loudly if you package them as subpackage(s) of your
main package. As long as the subpackage(s) are clean,
guidelines-compliant, and can be used by Fedora users without dragging
with them your app or TEX or other non-general-purpose stuff.

For example, for a “tex-foo” TEX package, you could have:

tex-foo-fonts-fontname1 (normal font subpackage #1)
tex-foo-fonts-fontname2 (normal font subpackage #2)
[…]
tex-foo-fonts-common    (common font subpackage that owns the fonts dirs
                         and the fonts-licensing files²)
tex-foo                 (main TEX package that depends on the
                         tex-foo-fonts packages, includes symlinks to
                         the font files in standard locations and
                         other TEX stuff)

The subpackaging logic is pretty much the same as in the
spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec template included in fontpackages-devel
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts

Please note that the current guidelines say that font packagers:
“SHOULD package each font family separately, and avoid font collections
that mix fonts of different history, licensing, or origin”³

There is some wiggle room between SHOULD and MUST, and it has posed
problems in the past six months, so I've pushed the simpler
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(...
FPC-side yesterday.

I hope that answers all your questions.

¹ After a period of “‘utter luddites’ shock” to quote a well-known xorg
contributor
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.freedesktop.xorg/34322/focus=34334

² of course if you're shipping a single font family, that requires a
single font subpackage, there's no need to separate directory and
licensing handling in a -common subpackage. Just create a single
tex-foo-fonts-fontname in that case.

³
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_i...

Sincerely,

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le lundi 22 décembre 2008 à 15:08 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
> Le lundi 22 décembre 2008 à 14:56 +0200, Sarantis Paskalis a écrit :
> > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 05:13:35PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Hi Sarantis,
> However, for fonts that are bundled in a software package with no
>
> other form of release, or fonts which have some additional non-standard
> stuff bundled with them (such as TEX packages), I don't think anyone
> will complain too loudly if you package them as subpackage(s) of your
> main package. As long as the subpackage(s) are clean,
> guidelines-compliant, and can be used by Fedora users without dragging
> with them your app or TEX or other non-general-purpose stuff.
>
> For example, for a “tex-foo” TEX package, you could have:
>
> tex-foo-fonts-fontname1 (normal font subpackage #1)
> tex-foo-fonts-fontname2 (normal font subpackage #2)
> […]
> tex-foo-fonts-common    (common font subpackage that owns the fonts dirs
>                          and the fonts-licensing files²)
> tex-foo                 (main TEX package that depends on the
>                          tex-foo-fonts packages, includes symlinks to
>                          the font files in standard locations and
>                          other TEX stuff)
>
> The subpackaging logic is pretty much the same as in the
> spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec template included in fontpackages-devel
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts

Also, I'm pretty sure the other TEX packagers would be delighted if
someone documented this stuff from the TEX POW.

[Sarantis Paskalis]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 03:08:21PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le lundi 22 décembre 2008 à 14:56 +0200, Sarantis Paskalis a écrit :
> > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 05:13:35PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Hi Sarantis,
> > > 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.
> > Two of my packages are TeX fonts (tetex-font-kerkis and 
> > tetex-font-cm-lgc), which contain .pfb files (postscript type 1 from 
> > what I could find out).
>
> We've known for quite a	while TEX had a problem with fonts installation
> and licensing. However repoquery unearthed many non-font packages that
> shipped fonts (not only TEX packages, and a lot more than I
> expected :(), so I'm going to write a general answer if you permit.
> The target font management stack on Fedora is fontconfig. It has
>
> “near universal” support including emacs-side¹.
> If your app is fontconfig-aware you just need to package the fonts it
>
> needs as a normal guidelines-compliant font package. Fontconfig will
> then locate them for your app no matter on how the font files are named
> or renamed.
> If your app is not fontconfig-aware, you should politely remind your
>
> upstream it has a problem.
> If your app is not fontconfig-aware, and there is no solution
>
> upstream in the short term, you still need to package the fonts using
> the normal Fedora fonts packaging guidelines. And then either patch your
> app to look for its fonts in the guidelines-compliant location or
> package a set of symlinks pointing to this location.
> The preferred way to package fonts is to locate their original font
>
> upstream and package the original font release in a separate fonts-only
> package.
> However, for fonts that are bundled in a software package with no
>
> other form of release, or fonts which have some additional non-standard
> stuff bundled with them (such as TEX packages), I don't think anyone
> will complain too loudly if you package them as subpackage(s) of your
> main package. As long as the subpackage(s) are clean,
> guidelines-compliant, and can be used by Fedora users without dragging
> with them your app or TEX or other non-general-purpose stuff.
>
> For example, for a “tex-foo” TEX package, you could have:
>
> tex-foo-fonts-fontname1 (normal font subpackage #1)
> tex-foo-fonts-fontname2 (normal font subpackage #2)
> […]
> tex-foo-fonts-common    (common font subpackage that owns the fonts dirs
>                          and the fonts-licensing files²)
> tex-foo                 (main TEX package that depends on the
>                          tex-foo-fonts packages, includes symlinks to
>                          the font files in standard locations and
>                          other TEX stuff)
>
> The subpackaging logic is pretty much the same as in the
> spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec template included in fontpackages-devel
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts
>
> Please note that the current guidelines say that font packagers:
> “SHOULD package each font family separately, and avoid font collections
> that mix fonts of different history, licensing, or origin”³
>
> There is some wiggle room between SHOULD and MUST, and it has posed
> problems in the past six months, so I've pushed the simpler
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(...
> FPC-side yesterday.
>
> I hope that answers all your questions.
>
> ¹ After a period of “‘utter luddites’ shock” to quote a well-known xorg
> contributor
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.freedesktop.xorg/34322/focus=34334
>
> ² of course if you're shipping a single font family, that requires a
> single font subpackage, there's no need to separate directory and
> licensing handling in a -common subpackage. Just create a single
> tex-foo-fonts-fontname in that case.
>
> ³
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_i...

Thanks for the really detailed guidelines.  My packages are just TeX 
fonts (and their TeX related configuration), so my actions boil down to 
moving the actual font files under /usr/share/fonts and symlink them to 
their original directory.

(I also have to rename the package but that is orthogonal to fonts and 
more related to TeX stuff after tetex EOL.)

Thanks again,

-- Sarantis

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Dear all,

To help people deal with the new fonts guidelines, I've added the
following FAQ to the wiki:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_other_packages_(FAQ)

Feel free to complete it (or request additions)

Regards,