Embedded fonts in HTML documentation

[Benson Muite]

When reviewing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693 fonts 
are embedded in the generated HTML documentation.  It seems that one can 
remove the font files and replace them with soft links to the font files 
in the packages:

https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/lato-fonts/lato-fonts/
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/adobe-source-code-pro-fonts/adobe-so...

Is this a reasonable thing to do as it would greatly reduce file 
duplication?

If so, can this change be applied to all rubygem packages? Can create 
pull requests for the rubygem packages in Pagure.

[Jarek Prokop]

Hi,

we are trying to address this in a way we believe is the least 
intrusive. However, the work is slow as we have other higher priority items.
Keep in mind that we are trying to find and implement a way that won't 
bring more work to packagers of new gems,
work to us with trying to add a few lines to specfiles and then 
rebuilding the whole ecosystem.
And at the same time won't impact the experience of Ruby developers that 
are using Fedora for their project.

[0] See thread: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail].o...

Vít has raised a few points there that I have on my backlog to even 
respond to.

On 10/2/22 08:33, Benson Muite wrote:
> When reviewing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693 
> fonts are embedded in the generated HTML documentation.  It seems that 
> one can remove the font files and replace them with soft links to the 
> font files in the packages:
>
> https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/lato-fonts/lato-fonts/
> https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/adobe-source-code-pro-fonts/adobe-so...
>
> Is this a reasonable thing to do as it would greatly reduce file 
> duplication?

We do not need font files there at all, the browser will find them in 
the right locations as long as the font packages are installed.

(Well, the CSS files seem to be smart enough for that anyway.)
> If so, can this change be applied to all rubygem packages? Can create 
> pull requests for the rubygem packages in Pagure.

Regards,
Jarek Prokop

[Benson Muite]

On 10/2/22 12:48, Jarek Prokop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we are trying to address this in a way we believe is the least 
> intrusive. However, the work is slow as we have other higher priority items.
> Keep in mind that we are trying to find and implement a way that won't 
> bring more work to packagers of new gems,
> work to us with trying to add a few lines to specfiles and then 
> rebuilding the whole ecosystem.
> And at the same time won't impact the experience of Ruby developers that 
> are using Fedora for their project.
>
> [0] See thread: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail].o...
>
> Vít has raised a few points there that I have on my backlog to even 
> respond to.
>
> On 10/2/22 08:33, Benson Muite wrote:
> > When reviewing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2127693 
> > fonts are embedded in the generated HTML documentation.  It seems that 
> > one can remove the font files and replace them with soft links to the 
> > font files in the packages:
> >
> > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/lato-fonts/lato-fonts/
> > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/adobe-source-code-pro-fonts/adobe-so...
> >
> > Is this a reasonable thing to do as it would greatly reduce file 
> > duplication?
>
> We do not need font files there at all, the browser will find them in 
> the right locations as long as the font packages are installed.Th thread indicates it may be problematic to put the documentation files

elsewhere. However, packaging policy is to minimize duplication [1]. 
Can one assume that updates to the Ruby packaging process will remove 
embedded fonts from all Ruby gems with generated html documentation? 
This would help with current reviews.

[1] 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_avoid_bundling_o...
> (Well, the CSS files seem to be smart enough for that anyway.)
> > If so, can this change be applied to all rubygem packages? Can create 
> > pull requests for the rubygem packages in Pagure.
>
> Regards,
> Jarek Prokop
>
> ruby-sig mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail].o...
> Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Jun Aruga (he / him)]

> Can one assume that updates to the Ruby packaging process will remove
> embedded fonts from all Ruby gems with generated html documentation?
> This would help with current reviews.
>
> [1]
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_avoid_bundling_o...

Possibly the steps to remove fonts from Ruby gems is

1 Update rpms/ruby RPM package (including rubygem-rdoc is a
sub-package of the rpms/ruby) with the rdoc logic to avoid generating
duplicated font logic.
2. When someone will build rpms/rubygem-foo with `fedpkg build`, the
rubygem-foo's RPM is built without duplicated font files.

It's not like building all the rpms/rubygem-* packages at the same time.