Re: [Fedora-packaging] Draft vote on Font Package Naming

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Jeu 15 janvier 2009 00:53, Jens Petersen a écrit :
>  ----- "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> > The draft is available here:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_%
> > 282009-01-13%29
>
>  Sorry but this is not a good idea IMO. 
BTW I think Jens objects strongly because he did not see some of the
horrific naming changes FPC proposed first, which would have resulted
in mass srpm renames and totally un-obvious srpm name -> rpm name
mappings.
(and we use srpm names to reference packages in all our infra tools)

The current FPC-approved draft is a lot saner and does not require too
much implementing work I think:

1. it does not change existing font srpm names at all, except for
 - the handful of packages that didn't respect strictly the previous
semi-official naming guidelines (I write semi-official because even
though no explicit font naming guideline was written down a naming
style was suggested in official font spec templates)
 - the handfuls of packages which didn't use foundryname prefixes when
they could (and we'd planned to make them change them anyway since
having some packages with this prefix and others without was
confusing to users and packagers)

2. does change font subpackage names slightly for font subpackages of
font srpms. I've pushed a new fontpackages-* rpm set (templates and
macros) to rawhide that minimizes the changes needed to existing font
specs to adapt to FPC naming (only %package and %description lines)

Of course packagers will still have to add Obsoletes manually, plus
some sort of Provides transition for the few font packages that other
packages depend on

Actual subpackage content and internal file layout didn't change.

3. Clarifies the font subpackage naming for font subpackages of
non-font srpms. Well since there was no clear convention before, and
inconsistent naming practices, any clear naming guideline was going to
require changes in most packages. I've adapted the macros to force the
FPC naming rules in that case.

WARNING 2. and 3. mean that trying to rebuild a srpm with font
subpackages in rawhide without doing the small spec changes entailed
by the new naming rules adopted by

As a test I've rebuilt a few font packages on my system, and changed
bitstream vera in rawhide, to verify it works in koji (it does), and
to provide people an example of what the renaming entails in practice
for a non-trivial font package.

Sincerely,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot