Hi all,
I haven't been too active on the SIG lately for lack of free time. However others (who rock) have been busy working on fonts packages, so here is a long delayed status update that will try to clear the backlog:
▪▪ General status
— We have 56 entries in the wishlist. Even counting entries the packager forgot to recategorize (grrr) I think the wishlist is still growing faster than we package fonts. More active packagers are obviously needed. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Font_wishlist
— We have 58 entries in the packaged list. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Packaged_fonts It is still nicely growing, and Fedora 9 level reviews like this one are already obsolete http://www.advogato.org/person/yosch/diary.html?start=4
— We've created 55 new packages since the start of the cycle (a wishlist entry can translate in several packages). That's pretty awesome and way past the 32 packages mark of the last report (and way past previous Fedora cycle accomplishments). Special kuddos to Dennis Jang for packaging the huge UN Korean font set (though he needs to update his wiki pages). Others didn't attain the level of awesomeness of Dennis but still did pretty well. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_inclusion_history
▪▪ Package status
▪▪▪ Packaged, with bugs still open: — sportrop-fonts, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456345 — asana-math-fonts, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455153 — icelandic-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445261
⇒ Packagers please close your review bugs when the packaging is finished.
▪▪▪ Packaged, but not referenced in Fedora 10 comps — myanmar3-unicode-fonts
That was short :) most packagers seem to apply http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Comps_fonts_rules without prodding on my part. Good job and please fix this one.
▪▪▪ Packaged, with wiki page not finalized or missing
— thibault-fonts-essays1743, — thibault-fonts-isabella, — thibault-fonts-rockets, — thibault-fonts-staypuft, — un-fonts, — un-extra-fonts, — icelandic-fonts — smc-fonts – darkgarden-fonts – sportrop-fonts — myanmar3-unicode-fonts
⇒ Please make sure each font package has a completed wiki page (Packaged fonts category) that can be used by the docs team in release notes and other documents
▪▪▪ Reviewed fonts waiting for packager action — bitstream-vera-fonts (old FE-MERGE ticket, needs someone to help Behdad co-maintain the package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225618 — sil-gentium-basic-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527 — hiran-perizia-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709 — cf-bonveno-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457955 — arabeyes-thabit-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139 — arabeyes-mothana-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462711 — alee-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466193 — hiran-rufscript-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467507
⇒ You know what you need to do
▪▪▪ Approved fonts not pushed yet — unikurd-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457281
▪▪▪ Waiting for a reviewer — heuristica-fonts (just cleared by FE-LEGAL) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452317 — oldstandard-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947 (not an easy font to package and not baked yet IMHO. I put some comments in the bug but didn't start formal review, so this one is still open)
⇒ We need some reviewers. I can't review every single font package out there (especially since I'm not allowed to review my own).
In other news more interesting material was added to the SIG wiki and a guideline change on fontconfig file location is still proceeding. And the big F11 package renaming is still planned, I just don't have the energy left to write about it.
I hope you liked this report. It took a lot of work to be written. If you want some changes in the next edition, just ping me.
Regards,
Le dimanche 26 octobre 2008 à 20:47 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
— We have 56 entries in the wishlist.
Actually we have 57 since Behdad requested FersiWeb fonts and no one has worked on it so far http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Farsiweb_fonts
Regards,
Actually we have 57 since Behdad requested FersiWeb fonts and no one
I should not be that hard really to generate a script to generate a skeleton spec file for any given font .
I know some packaging people frown on automated packaging but this might help lower the barrier to font packaging for which creating rpm's is really quite easy compared to general packaging. Such spec files would still need to go through being tweaked and polished during review of course but it would make it easier for people to get started I think.
Perhaps it is something we (Fonts SIG) should consider working on?
Jens
Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 à 18:58 -0500, Jens Petersen a écrit :
Actually we have 57 since Behdad requested FersiWeb fonts and no one
I should not be that hard really to generate a script to generate a skeleton spec file for any given font .
I know some packaging people frown on automated packaging but this might help lower the barrier to font packaging for which creating rpm's is really quite easy compared to general packaging. Such spec files would still need to go through being tweaked and polished during review of course but it would make it easier for people to get started I think.
Since I do a lot of font reviews I'd like the polishing to be done before a spec hit bugzilla :)
Anyway, with the experience of recent font reviews (un fonts in particular), I've written some macros and spec templates that push all the fc-cache scriptlet magic out of specfiles and should be a little easier for new maintainers to work on.
They still require a human to 1. decide which font file goes in which (sub)package 2. decide which fontconfig generic family to associate with each font 3. write summaries and descriptions 4. do some legal auditing
Quite frankly, appart from 1. that could possibly be automated by writing some script that uses fontconfig to tell people what font files declare the same font family, I don't see how we could go much farther (maybe generating the wiki page when it does not exist?)
Please review the files at http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/ and in particular the rpm-fonts package and how it is used by the other packages.
I don't like the fontconfig file symlinking stuff much, if you can find a simpler way to express it I'd be happy to change it.
Perhaps it is something we (Fonts SIG) should consider working on?
I don't really know what parts new font packagers find hardest, I'd love to see some feedback on the list.
As I wrote before, I don't think we could win a lot by automating. But anyway, it's Fedora and everyone is free to work on what he likes, so if you think automating would help far from me to stop you :p I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.
Regards,
-
Jens-Ulrik Petersen -
Nicolas Mailhot