Missing font information at wiki

[Akira TAGOH]

Hi,

All of fonts is supposed to have an information page for their fonts
at wiki based on the template[1] according to the package
lifecycle[2]. however some of them doesn't have. so just tried to pick
them up and inform you to get one there.

Please see the following source package list which may contains a font
package that doesn't have an information page at wiki, and would be
nice to have one for them.

[1]... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_description_template
[2]... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle

aalam            saab-fonts
ankursinha       hiran-perizia-fonts
ankursinha       oldstandard-sfd-fonts
asn              powerline
awjb             libdockapp
awjb             wine
bogado           cave9
bojan            grimmer-proggy-squaresz-fonts
bojan            grimmer-proggy-tinysz-fonts
bsjones          mscore
bsjones          rosegarden4
caolanm          libreoffice
chandankumar     python-XStatic-roboto-fontface
decathorpe       impallari-raleway-fonts
dkaspar          urw-base35-fonts
dvratil          oxygen-fonts
elad             alef-fonts
ellert           root
fale             abattis-cantarell-fonts
fangq            wqy-bitmap-fonts
fangq            wqy-unibit-fonts
fangq            wqy-zenhei-fonts
frixxon          drehatlas-warender-bibliothek-fonts
frixxon          drehatlas-widelands-fonts
frixxon          drehatlas-xaporho-fonts
fujiwara         bicon
hadess           eosrei-emojione-fonts
immanetize       glyphicons-halflings-fonts
jnovy            TeXmacs
jpena            python-XStatic-bootswatch
jpena            python-XStatic-mdi
jujens           astloch-fonts
jujens           carterone-fonts
jujens           cyreal-wireone-fonts
jujens           kranky-fonts
jujens           labelleaurore-fonts
jujens           monofett-fonts
jujens           reeniebeanie-fonts
jujens           shadowsintolight-fonts
jujens           unifrakturmaguntia-fonts
jujens           vt323-fonts
jujens           wallpoet-fonts
jwrdegoede       zvbi
kvolny           horai-ume-fonts
leamas           entypo-fonts
leamas           mnmlicons-fonts
limb             extremetuxracer
limb             gnu-free-fonts
limb             lilypond
lmacken          nethack
luya             aajohan-comfortaa-fonts
luya             blender
luya             julietaula-montserrat-fonts
luya             julietaula-montserrat-fonts
luya             typetype-molot-fonts
lyosnorezel      thibault-fonts
martinkg         vdrsymbol-fonts
marwin           labiryntowy-fonts
melmorabity      lato-fonts
mohammedisam     layla-fonts
mycae            mathgl
ndim             terminus-fonts
ngompa           d-din-fonts
nim              bitstream-vera-fonts
oget             serafettin-cartoon-fonts
ozamosi          msimonson-anonymouspro-fonts
petersen         sil-gentium-fonts
pnemade          aldusleaf-crimson-text-fonts
pnemade          almas-mongolian-title-fonts
pnemade          ekmukta-fonts
pnemade          google-roboto-mono-fonts
pnemade          google-roboto-slab-fonts
pnemade          impallari-lobster-fonts
pnemade          iso8859-2-fonts
pnemade          kurdit-unikurd-web-fonts
pnemade          moyogo-molengo-fonts
pnemade          oflb-asana-math-fonts
pnemade          pagul-fonts
pnemade          sarai-fonts
pnemade          tabish-eeyek-fonts
pnemade          tharlon-fonts
pnemade          tuladha-jejeg-fonts
ppisar           sil-mingzat-fonts
pravins          bitmap-fonts
pravins          cdac-sakal-marathi-fonts
pravins          google-noto-fonts
pravins          gubbi-fonts
pravins          kalapi-fonts
pravins          nafees-naskh-fonts
pravins          nafees-nastaleeq-fonts
pravins          nafees-pakistani-naskh-fonts
pravins          nafees-pakistani-web-naskh-fonts
pravins          nafees-riqa-fonts
pravins          nafees-tehreer-naskh-fonts
pravins          nafees-web-naskh-fonts
pravins          navilu-fonts
pravins          paktype-ajrak-fonts
pravins          paktype-naqsh-fonts
pravins          paktype-naskh-basic-fonts
pravins          smc-fonts
pravins          ucs-miscfixed-fonts
pvoborni         fontawesome-fonts
pwu              adobe-source-han-sans-cn-fonts
pwu              adobe-source-han-sans-tw-fonts
pwu              adobe-source-han-serif-cn-fonts
pwu              adobe-source-han-serif-tw-fonts
pwu              baekmuk-bdf-fonts
pwu              baekmuk-ttf-fonts
pwu              cjkuni-ukai-fonts
pwu              cjkuni-uming-fonts
pwu              google-noto-cjk-fonts
pwu              google-noto-emoji-fonts
pwu              manchu-fonts
pwu              nhn-nanum-gothic-coding-fonts
pwu              nhn-nanum-gothic-light-fonts
pwu              sil-nuosu-fonts
pwu              ukij-tuz-fonts
pwu              un-core-fonts
pwu              un-extra-fonts
pwu              wqy-microhei-fonts
rajeeshknambiar  paratype-pt-mono-fonts
rajeeshknambiar  paratype-pt-serif-fonts
raphgro          apx
raphgro          cmatrix
rathann          fontsquirrel-crete-round-fonts
rdieter          jsmath-fonts
rdieter          lyx
remi             php-tcpdf
rrankin          denemo
ryansb           pcaro-hermit-fonts
sagitter         pioneer
sarantis         ctan-cm-lgc-fonts
sarantis         ctan-kerkis-fonts
spot             librecad
suraia           adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts
susmit           kanotf-fonts
susmit           levien-museum-fonts
tagoh            japanese-bitmap-fonts
tagoh            jisksp16-1990-fonts
tagoh            knm-new-fixed-fonts
tomspur          python-matplotlib
vtrefny          freecol
zbyszek          gust-antykwa-torunska-fonts
zbyszek          mathjax
zbyszek          unifont
zdohnal          ghostscript-fonts

-- 
Akira TAGOH

[Karel Volný]

Hi,

>  All of fonts is supposed to have an information page for their fonts
>  at wiki based on the template[1] according to the package
>  lifecycle[2]. however some of them doesn't have. so just tried to pick
>  them up and inform you to get one there. 
...
>  kvolny           horai-ume-fonts 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ume_fonts

how can I link the package to the page so it gets off the list of missing?

K.

-- 
Karel Volný
BaseOS QE - Daemons
Red Hat Czech, Brno
tel. [phone]
(RH: [phone] ext. 8262074)
:: "Never attribute to malice what can
::  easily be explained by stupidity."

[Akira TAGOH]

Please see the template I mentioned in the initial mail for more
details. the comment in the template describes more instruction how to
make a link to koji and pkgdb etc.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hi,
>
> > All of fonts is supposed to have an information page for their fonts
> > at wiki based on the template[1] according to the package
> > lifecycle[2]. however some of them doesn't have. so just tried to pick
> > them up and inform you to get one there.
>
>  ...
> >
> > kvolny           horai-ume-fonts
>
>
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ume_fonts
>
>  how can I link the package to the page so it gets off the list of missing?
>
>  K.
>
>  --
>  Karel Volný
>  BaseOS QE - Daemons
>  Red Hat Czech, Brno
>  tel. [phone]
>  (RH: [phone] ext. 8262074)
>  :: "Never attribute to malice what can
>  ::  easily be explained by stupidity."
>  _______________________________________________
>  fonts mailing list -- fonts(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to fonts-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org 


-- 
Akira TAGOH

updating pkgdb macro? [was: Re: Missing font information at wiki]

[Karel Volný]

Hi,

Dne čtvrtek 23. listopadu 2017 5:19:00 CET, Akira TAGOH  napsal(a):
>  Please see the template I mentioned in the initial mail for more
>  details. the comment in the template describes more instruction how to
>  make a link to koji and pkgdb etc. 
thanks, so I read that as adding those links will do the trick

while at it, I have noticed that adding 
[[pkgdb:horai-ume-fonts|horai-ume-fonts]] links to the web which is being 
decomissioned

I'm not familiar with wiki, and don't have the capacity to study processes 
and things around those font pages, so I'd like to kindly ask, if *someone* 
can take care of updating it to point to whatever replaces the old pkgdb (I 
can't even figure out what'd be the appropriate new link target :-( )?

K.

-- 
Karel Volný
BaseOS QE - Daemons
Red Hat Czech, Brno
tel. [phone]
(RH: [phone] ext. 8262074)
:: "Never attribute to malice what can
::  easily be explained by stupidity."

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:44:05PM +0530, Akira TAGOH wrote:
>  All of fonts is supposed to have an information page for their fonts
>  at wiki based on the template[1] according to the package
>  lifecycle[2]. however some of them doesn't have. so just tried to pick
>  them up and inform you to get one there. 
Are they? From the lifecycle page you link, that seems to be there to
enable the packaging of the font in the first place, not meant to be
long-term documentation. If it _is_ meant to be long-term
documentation, that should be clarified somewhere. Who is the audience
for this documentation?

If it's supposed to be for end users (and that's a great goal!), I
think the new docs site would be better than the wiki.

If it's for contributors and packagers, wouldn't it be better to have
the documentation in a README.md in dist-git, next to the spec file?
That way, it'd show up at (for example)
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/overpass-fonts

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Akira TAGOH]

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:44:05PM +0530, Akira TAGOH wrote:
> > All of fonts is supposed to have an information page for their fonts
> > at wiki based on the template[1] according to the package
> > lifecycle[2]. however some of them doesn't have. so just tried to pick
> > them up and inform you to get one there.
>
>  Are they? From the lifecycle page you link, that seems to be there to
>  enable the packaging of the font in the first place, not meant to be
>  long-term documentation. If it _is_ meant to be long-term
>  documentation, that should be clarified somewhere. Who is the audience
>  for this documentation? 
That could be. as some of the wiki pages contains the sample
rendering, that should definitely be helpful for the end users too to
see how it looks like. unfortunately not available everything. we
could improve it.
For the audience, I don't know.. maybe Nicolas Mailhot?

>  If it's supposed to be for end users (and that's a great
> goal!), I
>  think the new docs site would be better than the wiki. 
Sure. yes, I like it. that depends what sort of information we provide
though, the wiki pages can be easily outdated if noone maintains. so
maybe nice to have the sort of web apps or any infrastructure working
at the background to generate information from the packages and so on.
well, we could do that with wiki even though.

>  If it's for contributors and packagers, wouldn't it be better to have
>  the documentation in a README.md in dist-git, next to the spec file?
>  That way, it'd show up at (for example)
>  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/overpass-fonts
>
>  --
>  Matthew Miller
>  <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  Fedora Project Leader
>  _______________________________________________
>  devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org 


-- 
Akira TAGOH

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 04:16:27PM +0530, Akira TAGOH wrote:
>  On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Matthew Miller
>  <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  > On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 03:44:05PM +0530, Akira TAGOH wrote:
>  >> All of fonts is supposed to have an information page for their fonts
>  >> at wiki based on the template[1] according to the package
>  >> lifecycle[2]. however some of them doesn't have. so just tried to pick
>  >> them up and inform you to get one there.
>  >
>  > Are they? From the lifecycle page you link, that seems to be there to
>  > enable the packaging of the font in the first place, not meant to be
>  > long-term documentation. If it _is_ meant to be long-term
>  > documentation, that should be clarified somewhere. Who is the audience
>  > for this documentation?
>  
>  That could be. as some of the wiki pages contains the sample
>  rendering, that should definitely be helpful for the end users too to
>  see how it looks like. unfortunately not available everything. we
>  could improve it.
>  For the audience, I don't know.. maybe Nicolas Mailhot? 
I think we should consider getting rid of this requirement. Updating
wiki pages is quite a bit of work, and we have better mechanisms to
advertise stuff to users that didn't exist a few years ago. Apart from
the manual effort, the problem with wiki pages is that they tend to
get out of date pretty quickly enough to be out-of-date to often to be
really trustworthy. Instead, I think it'd be better to spend the
effort on making gnome software support fonts even better and to improve
the appdata files for fonts to make them "shine" in gnome-software.
This would be

a) less effort (a few minutes to create an appdata file when initially
packaging the font, very little ongoing effort, metadata is automatically
updated on package updates),

b) actually more useful for users (you get a live list, click "install"
on the font you like, instead of going from a wiki page to the command
line).

I attached a screenshot from gnome-software-3.26.1-3.fc27.x86_64 for a
random font. This _is_ already pretty good, but it'd be nice to get rid
of the "No screenshot provided" thing. Why would gnome-software show that?
It could only useful for developers, but fonts actually don't need a
screenshot, and the space could be used to show more text...

Also, most fonts don't have good descriptions in the appdata files.
_This_ is something that requires font maintainer input.

/cc Richard Hughes

Zbyszek

PS. The screenshots also at https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/gnome-software-font.png,
https://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/gnome-software-font2.png,
in case the attachments don't get through.

>  
>  > If it's supposed to be for end users (and that's a great goal!), I
>  > think the new docs site would be better than the wiki.
>  
>  Sure. yes, I like it. that depends what sort of information we provide
>  though, the wiki pages can be easily outdated if noone maintains. so
>  maybe nice to have the sort of web apps or any infrastructure working
>  at the background to generate information from the packages and so on.
>  well, we could do that with wiki even though.
>  
>  >
>  > If it's for contributors and packagers, wouldn't it be better to have
>  > the documentation in a README.md in dist-git, next to the spec file?
>  > That way, it'd show up at (for example)
>  > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/overpass-fonts
>  >
>  > --
>  > Matthew Miller
>  > <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  > Fedora Project Leader
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  
>  
>  
>  -- 
>  Akira TAGOH
>  _______________________________________________
>  fonts mailing list -- fonts(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to fonts-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org

[Will Crawford]

On 23 November 2017 at 13:55, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; wrote:
[...]
>  I think we should consider getting rid of this requirement. Updating
>  wiki pages is quite a bit of work, and we have better mechanisms to
>  advertise stuff to users that didn't exist a few years ago. Apart from
>  the manual effort, the problem with wiki pages is that they tend to
>  get out of date pretty quickly enough to be out-of-date to often to be
>  really trustworthy. Instead, I think it'd be better to spend the
>  effort on making gnome software support fonts even better and to improve
>  the appdata files for fonts to make them "shine" in gnome-software.
>  This would be
>
>  a) less effort (a few minutes to create an appdata file when initially
>  packaging the font, very little ongoing effort, metadata is automatically
>  updated on package updates),
>
>  b) actually more useful for users (you get a live list, click "install"
>  on the font you like, instead of going from a wiki page to the command
>  line). 
There are still some dinosaurs who don't use GNOME.

Maybe some mechanisms that aren't dependent on that would be good?

[Richard Hughes]

On 23 November 2017 at 20:34, Will Crawford <billcrawford1970(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  There are still some dinosaurs who don't use GNOME. 
AppStream is a cross distro and cross desktop specification. It's used
by Muon, Discover and Apper on KDE, AppCenter on Elementary OS and
also desktop neutral projects like Cockpit.

Richard

[Karel Volný]

Dne čtvrtek 23. listopadu 2017 22:29:41 CET, Richard Hughes  napsal(a):
>  On 23 November 2017 at 20:34, Will Crawford 
>  <billcrawford1970(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > There are still some dinosaurs who don't use GNOME.
>
>  AppStream is a cross distro and cross desktop specification. It's used
>  by Muon, Discover and Apper on KDE, AppCenter on Elementary OS and
>  also desktop neutral projects like Cockpit. 
well, there are even some theropsids who don't use Apper or Cockpit etc.

$ rpm -q --qf %{DESCRIPTION}\\n terminus-fonts-console

/me hides ;-)

K.

-- 
Karel Volný
BaseOS QE - Daemons
Red Hat Czech, Brno
tel. [phone]
(RH: [phone] ext. 8262074)
:: "Never attribute to malice what can
::  easily be explained by stupidity."

[David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]]

Hello guys! :)

I have created the wiki page as requested (finally)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/URW_base35_fonts, but I didn't go through
the pain of filling out the tables there completely. It actually does not
makes sense for a package that has multiple fonts families. Probably the
whole table would be checked, without any real value/information for the
users.

So where did we end up on that use AppStream for fonts previews in Gnome
Software? The urw-base35-fonts have manually written AppStream files for
them, so you should (hopefully) see those fonts being available on F27+.
And I think these AppStream files could be used a startup point for anyone
who would like to write a guideline how to create these AppStream files for
fonts from scratch. (I'm too busy to do it right now.)

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>;.

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 06:23:09PM +0100, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] wrote:
>  Hello guys! :)
>  
>  I have created the wiki page as requested (finally)
>  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/URW_base35_fonts, but I didn't go through
>  the pain of filling out the tables there completely. It actually does not
>  makes sense for a package that has multiple fonts families. Probably the
>  whole table would be checked, without any real value/information for the
>  users.
>  
>  So where did we end up on that use AppStream for fonts previews in Gnome
>  Software? The urw-base35-fonts have manually written AppStream files for
>  them, so you should (hopefully) see those fonts being available on F27+. 
Hi,

on up-to-date F27 installation, with urw-base35-fonts-20170801-4.fc27.noarch
and gnome-software-3.26.6-1.fc27.x86_64, it seems that those fonts are NOT
shown by gnome-software. Neither searching for "urw" nor "nimbus"
yields
any results.

Zbyszek

[David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; wrote:

>  Hi,
>
>  on up-to-date F27 installation, with urw-base35-fonts-20170801-4.
>  fc27.noarch
>  and gnome-software-3.26.6-1.fc27.x86_64, it seems that those fonts are NOT
>  shown by gnome-software. Neither searching for "urw" nor "nimbus"
> yields
>  any results.
>
>  Zbyszek
>  
​Hey Zbyszek, thanks for the info! :) Anyway, it's strange, because the
font subpackages have the AppStream files ship with them. One AppStream
file for each font family.

You can see the sources of the files here:
https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/urw-base35-fonts/tree/master/appstream
And the AppStream file is listed in koji as well:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=13076401

When I was working on this, I have read on some of our wiki that adding the
AppStream files should be enough, but I'm probably missing some step. Any
ideas how to enable the urw-base35-fonts to be visible in Gnome Software? :)

 -- Dee'Kej --​

[Parag Nemade]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:20 PM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]
<dkaspar(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>  <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > on up-to-date F27 installation, with
> > urw-base35-fonts-20170801-4.fc27.noarch
> > and gnome-software-3.26.6-1.fc27.x86_64, it seems that those fonts are NOT
> > shown by gnome-software. Neither searching for "urw" nor "nimbus"
> yields
> > any results.
> >
> > Zbyszek
>
>
>  Hey Zbyszek, thanks for the info! :) Anyway, it's strange, because the font
>  subpackages have the AppStream files ship with them. One AppStream file for
>  each font family.
>
>  You can see the sources of the files here:
>  https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/urw-base35-fonts/tree/master/appstream
>  And the AppStream file is listed in koji as well:
>  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=13076401
>
>  When I was working on this, I have read on some of our wiki that adding the
>  AppStream files should be enough, but I'm probably missing some step. Any
>  ideas how to enable the urw-base35-fonts to be visible in Gnome Software? :)
>
>   -- Dee'Kej -- 
This font has been added/updated to upstream just 25 days ago and I
don't think we have got that update (appstream-data package) in Fedora
27 yet but I can see update for rawhide is available. See the upstream
repo https://github.com/hughsie/createrepo_as_logs/tree/master/u and
downstream package at
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=18639

Parag.

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 04:37:04PM +0530, Parag Nemade wrote:
>  On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:20 PM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]
>  <dkaspar(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>  > <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; wrote:
>  >>
>  >> Hi,
>  >>
>  >> on up-to-date F27 installation, with
>  >> urw-base35-fonts-20170801-4.fc27.noarch
>  >> and gnome-software-3.26.6-1.fc27.x86_64, it seems that those fonts are NOT
>  >> shown by gnome-software. Neither searching for "urw" nor
> "nimbus" yields
>  >> any results.
>  >>
>  >> Zbyszek
>  >
>  >
>  > Hey Zbyszek, thanks for the info! :) Anyway, it's strange, because the font
>  > subpackages have the AppStream files ship with them. One AppStream file for
>  > each font family.
>  >
>  > You can see the sources of the files here:
>  > https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/urw-base35-fonts/tree/master/appstream
>  > And the AppStream file is listed in koji as well:
>  > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=13076401
>  >
>  > When I was working on this, I have read on some of our wiki that adding the
>  > AppStream files should be enough, but I'm probably missing some step. Any
>  > ideas how to enable the urw-base35-fonts to be visible in Gnome Software? :)
>  >
>  >  -- Dee'Kej --
>  
>  This font has been added/updated to upstream just 25 days ago and I
>  don't think we have got that update (appstream-data package) in Fedora
>  27 yet but I can see update for rawhide is available. See the upstream
>  repo https://github.com/hughsie/createrepo_as_logs/tree/master/u and
>  downstream package at
>  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=18639 
I don't think this should matter: I have the appstream file installed on disk
(urw-base35-fonts-20170801-4.fc27.noarch has it, and I check that the file
is indeed present).

And anyway, I upgraded to appstream-data-28-4.fc28 and restarted gnome-software
and there is no difference. So it seems that gnome-software for some reason
does not like that appstream file.

Too bad there's still no obvious way to diagnose this :[

Zbyszek

[David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; wrote:

>  I don't think this should matter: I have the appstream file
> installed on
>  disk
>  (urw-base35-fonts-20170801-4.fc27.noarch has it, and I check that the file
>  is indeed present).
>
>  And anyway, I upgraded to appstream-data-28-4.fc28 and restarted
>  gnome-software
>  and there is no difference. So it seems that gnome-software for some reason
>  does not like that appstream file.
>
>  Too bad there's still no obvious way to diagnose this :[
>
>  Zbyszek
>  
​That's very unfortunate... :-/ I'm willing to fix those AppStream files,
but first I need to know how... :-/​

​I might try to fiddle with it a little once I upgrade to F28 and find some
time for it.​

[Peter Oliver]

>  I'm willing to fix those AppStream files, but first I need to
> know how... :-/​ 
Did you look at, e.g.,
https://github.com/hughsie/createrepo_as_logs/blob/master/u/urw-base35-bo... 
It appears you're missing a </p> tag.

You can get this info locally by running `appstream-util validate` on the XML files.

-- 
Peter Oliver

[David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]]

Oh, I wasn't sure what to do with those logs. I see now. :) Let me check it.

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>;.

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Peter Oliver <
lists.fedoraproject.org(a)mavit.org.uk&gt; wrote:

>  > I'm willing to fix those AppStream files, but first I need
> to know
>  how... :-/​
>
>  Did you look at, e.g., https://github.com/hughsie/createrepo_as_logs/blob/
>  master/u/urw-base35-bookman-fonts.log?  It appears you're missing a </p>
>  tag.
>
>  You can get this info locally by running `appstream-util validate` on the
>  XML files.
>
>  --
>  Peter Oliver
>  _______________________________________________
>  fonts mailing list -- fonts(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to fonts-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>

[Parag Nemade]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; wrote:
>  On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 04:37:04PM +0530, Parag Nemade wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:20 PM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]
> > <dkaspar(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > > <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> on up-to-date F27 installation, with
> > >> urw-base35-fonts-20170801-4.fc27.noarch
> > >> and gnome-software-3.26.6-1.fc27.x86_64, it seems that those fonts are NOT
> > >> shown by gnome-software. Neither searching for "urw" nor
> "nimbus" yields
> > >> any results.
> > >>
> > >> Zbyszek
> > >
> > >
> > > Hey Zbyszek, thanks for the info! :) Anyway, it's strange, because the font
> > > subpackages have the AppStream files ship with them. One AppStream file for
> > > each font family.
> > >
> > > You can see the sources of the files here:
> > > https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/urw-base35-fonts/tree/master/appstream
> > > And the AppStream file is listed in koji as well:
> > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=13076401
> > >
> > > When I was working on this, I have read on some of our wiki that adding the
> > > AppStream files should be enough, but I'm probably missing some step. Any
> > > ideas how to enable the urw-base35-fonts to be visible in Gnome Software? :)
> > >
> > >  -- Dee'Kej --
> >
> > This font has been added/updated to upstream just 25 days ago and I
> > don't think we have got that update (appstream-data package) in Fedora
> > 27 yet but I can see update for rawhide is available. See the upstream
> > repo https://github.com/hughsie/createrepo_as_logs/tree/master/u and
> > downstream package at
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=18639
>
>  I don't think this should matter: I have the appstream file installed on disk
>  (urw-base35-fonts-20170801-4.fc27.noarch has it, and I check that the file
>  is indeed present).
>
>  And anyway, I upgraded to appstream-data-28-4.fc28 and restarted gnome-software
>  and there is no difference. So it seems that gnome-software for some reason
>  does not like that appstream file.
>
>  Too bad there's still no obvious way to diagnose this :[ 
I have not checked actually whether its working or not. Now as you
said its not working then we need to check the log files. E.g. see
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hughsie/createrepo_as_logs/master/u/urw...
which shows some warning. So this need to be fixed.
e.g. one of the file I checked upstream
https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/urw-base35-fonts/blob/master/appstream...
and can see missing </p> tag

Good to follow fonts spec templates from
https://pagure.io/fontpackages/blob/master/f/spec-templates/spectemplate-...
which tells to use appstream-util on metainfo files to check them for
syntax validity.

Parag.

[David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]]

​I faintly recall using the XML checker before I was submitting the first
pull-request for those AppStream files. But then some other pull-requests
came, or maybe I just screw up the check, so the </p> element was missing.
Anyway, upstream just merged my pull-request:
https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/urw-base35-fonts/pull/20

I will release a new version of urw-base35-fonts today... ;)

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 01:31:05PM +0100, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] wrote:
>  ​I faintly recall using the XML checker before I was submitting the
> first
>  pull-request for those AppStream files. But then some other pull-requests
>  came, or maybe I just screw up the check, so the </p> element was missing.
>  Anyway, upstream just merged my pull-request:
>  https://github.com/ArtifexSoftware/urw-base35-fonts/pull/20
>  
>  I will release a new version of urw-base35-fonts today... ;) 
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData#app-data-validate_usage:
>  you MUST run appstream-util validate-relax (in %check or %install)
That should help in the future ;)

Zbyszek

[David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]]

​Done:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/urw-base35-fonts-20170801-5.fc27

Let me know, if you still see any issues with it (after it lands into
stable). Thanks! :)

[Parag Nemade]

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:25 PM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]
<dkaspar(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Done:
>  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/urw-base35-fonts-20170801-5.fc27
>
>  Let me know, if you still see any issues with it (after it lands into
>  stable). Thanks! :) 
Thanks for fixing it quickly.  Now we need to wait when Richard will
run the new appstream data generation. Once its available this package
can be checked in upstream logs for any error. If no error then it
should appear in gnome-software when this new appstream-data gets
built in Fedora releases.

Parag.

[Richard Hughes]

On 21 February 2018 at 11:09, Parag Nemade <panemade(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Thanks for fixing it quickly.  Now we need to wait when Richard will
>  run the new appstream data generation. Once its available this package
>  can be checked in upstream logs for any error. If no error then it
>  should appear in gnome-software when this new appstream-data gets
>  built in Fedora releases. 
I'll run it now, but i'm using a tier-2 mirror so sometimes it takes a
few days to appear.

Richard.

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 08:34:35PM +0000, Will Crawford wrote:
>  On 23 November 2017 at 13:55, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>  <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; wrote:
>  [...]
>  > I think we should consider getting rid of this requirement. Updating
>  > wiki pages is quite a bit of work, and we have better mechanisms to
>  > advertise stuff to users that didn't exist a few years ago. Apart from
>  > the manual effort, the problem with wiki pages is that they tend to
>  > get out of date pretty quickly enough to be out-of-date to often to be
>  > really trustworthy. Instead, I think it'd be better to spend the
>  > effort on making gnome software support fonts even better and to improve
>  > the appdata files for fonts to make them "shine" in gnome-software.
>  > This would be
>  >
>  > a) less effort (a few minutes to create an appdata file when initially
>  > packaging the font, very little ongoing effort, metadata is automatically
>  > updated on package updates),
>  >
>  > b) actually more useful for users (you get a live list, click "install"
>  > on the font you like, instead of going from a wiki page to the command
>  > line).
>  
>  There are still some dinosaurs who don't use GNOME.
>  
>  Maybe some mechanisms that aren't dependent on that would be good? 
I'd try to write a page generator that'd turn appdata files into
html. Might be useful for more than fonts. That doesn't even seem
like that much work, to write such a script and have it run once a
week and update the html for all updated packages and push it out to
a server somewhere.

Zbyszek

[Akira TAGOH]

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; wrote:
>  I think we should consider getting rid of this requirement. Updating
>  wiki pages is quite a bit of work, and we have better mechanisms to
>  advertise stuff to users that didn't exist a few years ago. Apart from
>  the manual effort, the problem with wiki pages is that they tend to
>  get out of date pretty quickly enough to be out-of-date to often to be
>  really trustworthy. Instead, I think it'd be better to spend the
>  effort on making gnome software support fonts even better and to improve
>  the appdata files for fonts to make them "shine" in gnome-software.
>  This would be 
I have no objections if we can have much better way. I like less manual effort.

-- 
Akira TAGOH