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
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.
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@redhat.com 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. +420 532294274 (RH: +420 532294111 ext. 8262074) :: "Never attribute to malice what can :: easily be explained by stupidity." _______________________________________________ fonts mailing list -- fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to fonts-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
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.
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
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 3:31 AM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org 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@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@fedoraproject.org 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@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
-- Akira TAGOH _______________________________________________ fonts mailing list -- fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to fonts-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 23 November 2017 at 13:55, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl 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?
On 23 November 2017 at 20:34, Will Crawford billcrawford1970@gmail.com 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
Dne čtvrtek 23. listopadu 2017 22:29:41 CET, Richard Hughes napsal(a):
On 23 November 2017 at 20:34, Will Crawford billcrawford1970@gmail.com 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.
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.
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
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbyszek@in.waw.pl> 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 --
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 3:20 PM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] dkaspar@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl 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.
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@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl 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
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbyszek@in.waw.pl> 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.
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-bookm... It appears you're missing a </p> tag.
You can get this info locally by running `appstream-util validate` on the XML files.
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@mavit.org.uk> 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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to fonts-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl 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@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl 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-ba... 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/de... and can see missing </p> tag
Good to follow fonts spec templates from https://pagure.io/fontpackages/blob/master/f/spec-templates/spectemplate-fon... which tells to use appstream-util on metainfo files to check them for syntax validity.
Parag.
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... ;)
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
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! :)
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:25 PM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] dkaspar@redhat.com 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.
On 21 February 2018 at 11:09, Parag Nemade panemade@gmail.com 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.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 08:34:35PM +0000, Will Crawford wrote:
On 23 November 2017 at 13:55, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl 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
On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl 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 -
David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] -
Karel Volný -
Matthew Miller -
Parag Nemade -
Peter Oliver -
Richard Hughes -
Will Crawford -
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek