[Bug 477450] [rosegarden4] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477450


Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |oget.fedora at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|seg at haxxed.com              |oget.fedora at gmail.com




--- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com>  2009-03-07 03:27:25 EDT ---
I got ACL for this package and I made an attempt to separate the fonts:
   http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1228226

There are 3 .pfa fonts in this package are, two of them are derived from
lilypond's feta fonts and 1 is derived from lilypond's parmesan fonts. It is
fairly difficult to produce these .pfa files from source .mf files.

Two of these fonts can be converted from .pfb files (that are available in
lilypond builds) to .pfa files, but unfortunately lilypond's current tarball
doesn't contain the sources for the last font (feta-nummer10) anymore. Note
that lilypond only offers .pfb files and no .pfa files.

I also saw that the glyph names are modified from the original lilypond source
files. Well, maybe the names of these glyphs were so in an older version of
lilypond. So, there is a tiny possibility that if we were to use the current
lilypond fonts, rosegarden might misbehave.

Hence I made two subpackages
   rosegarden4-feta-fonts (contains 2 .pfa files)
   rosegarden4-parmesan-fonts (contains 1 .pfa file)

Let me know if I need to do any other changes.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.