Le Lun 13 novembre 2006 09:12, Sarantis Paskalis a écrit :
Hi,
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 09:29:51PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> [...]
>
> Example:
>
> devel/hunky-fonts/hunky-fonts.spec
>
> Conflicts: fontconfig < 2.3.93
>
> There's no comment that explains this. Can we please require packagers
> to explain such unusual things in the spec file?
>
> Either it's superfluous Conflicts information (overuse of an RPM
> feature)
> or at some point in time the package really conflicted with Core's
> fontconfig. In that case, ouch.
The same conflict applies to all font packages. Its root is here
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-January/msg00918.html
That's one reason but not the only one, font systems are fun.
The introduction of the Conflict came instead of Requires: th
e newer fontconfig). The spec file change was copy-pasted from one font
package to most (all?) others.
Probably from my dejavu-fonts spec
I suspect the correct thing to do was to
add a Requires: fontconfig >= 2.3.93 instead of the Conflicts:.
Is that correct?
No. We don't want font packages to depend on fontconfig. However if
fontconfig is installed it better be a version compatible with the
fontconfig stuff the font package does (ghosting of cache files is one
thing, another is the conf files we drop in /etc/fonts/conf.d - I have no
idea how an older fontconfig would interpret the new syntax and frankly I
don't want to test it).
The conflict should be no problem as a font package should never conflict
with the fontconfig version of the release it's pushed for. It's only a
safety should a system update its fontconfig package without updating the
font packages at the same time.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot