fonts October 2008

fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org

6 participants
7 discussions

conf.avail, rpmlint and the FHS
by Nicolas Mailhot 18 Nov '08

18 Nov '08

Hi all, When conf.avail was introduced in fontconfig we at Fedora mostly ignored it and let font packages install their fontconfig rules directly in conf.d http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsSpecTemplate (the exception being the fontconfig package itself who perforce followed the new conventions). Recent events made me revisit this point and try to heal the rift between fontconfig and font packages by following common conventions. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correctio… In the course of the examination of this guideline change proposal, however, it was identified that conf.avail as currently designed causes our rpmlint package sanity check tool to emit errors. Those errors were ok for Behdad to ignore, but really not ok for general packaging guidelines we want to put into newbie packager hands. The core reason are that since we deploy policy through those fontconfig files, we absolutely do not want users to change them (they're free to un-reference the files in conf.d, or write their own fontconfig rules in different files, but we instruct rpm to stomp on old versions of our files on updates). Since we mark those files as non-modifiable (%config and not %config(noreplace) in rpm speak) rpmlint considers them as data, not configuration, and complains of their location under /etc. After thinking a bit about it I feel rpmlint is right — since we don't let users modify our fontconfig files they're not dynamic configuration, just static data users can choose to activate or not. We could of course add an exception in rpmlint just for conf.avail, but I'd rather have fontconfig be fixed to follow more closely the FHS. Exceptions ultimately pile on till you have a lot of cruft to clean up which is not my definition of fun. Can conf.avail and its contents be moved in /usr/share/something in the next version of fontconfig? See also: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021 Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

3 4

[LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report
by Nicolas Mailhot 18 Nov '08

18 Nov '08

Hi all, I haven't been too active on the SIG lately for lack of free time. However others (who rock) have been busy working on fonts packages, so here is a long delayed status update that will try to clear the backlog: ▪▪ General status — We have 56 entries in the wishlist. Even counting entries the packager forgot to recategorize (grrr) I think the wishlist is still growing faster than we package fonts. More active packagers are obviously needed. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Font_wishlist — We have 58 entries in the packaged list. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Packaged_fonts It is still nicely growing, and Fedora 9 level reviews like this one are already obsolete http://www.advogato.org/person/yosch/diary.html?start=4 — We've created 55 new packages since the start of the cycle (a wishlist entry can translate in several packages). That's pretty awesome and way past the 32 packages mark of the last report (and way past previous Fedora cycle accomplishments). Special kuddos to Dennis Jang for packaging the huge UN Korean font set (though he needs to update his wiki pages). Others didn't attain the level of awesomeness of Dennis but still did pretty well. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_inclusion_history ▪▪ Package status ▪▪▪ Packaged, with bugs still open: — sportrop-fonts, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456345 — asana-math-fonts, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455153 — icelandic-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445261 ⇒ Packagers please close your review bugs when the packaging is finished. ▪▪▪ Packaged, but not referenced in Fedora 10 comps — myanmar3-unicode-fonts That was short :) most packagers seem to apply http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Comps_fonts_rules without prodding on my part. Good job and please fix this one. ▪▪▪ Packaged, with wiki page not finalized or missing — thibault-fonts-essays1743, — thibault-fonts-isabella, — thibault-fonts-rockets, — thibault-fonts-staypuft, — un-fonts, — un-extra-fonts, — icelandic-fonts — smc-fonts – darkgarden-fonts – sportrop-fonts — myanmar3-unicode-fonts ⇒ Please make sure each font package has a completed wiki page (Packaged fonts category) that can be used by the docs team in release notes and other documents ▪▪▪ Reviewed fonts waiting for packager action — bitstream-vera-fonts (old FE-MERGE ticket, needs someone to help Behdad co-maintain the package) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225618 — sil-gentium-basic-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527 — hiran-perizia-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709 — cf-bonveno-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457955 — arabeyes-thabit-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139 — arabeyes-mothana-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462711 — alee-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466193 — hiran-rufscript-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467507 ⇒ You know what you need to do ▪▪▪ Approved fonts not pushed yet — unikurd-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457281 ▪▪▪ Waiting for a reviewer — heuristica-fonts (just cleared by FE-LEGAL) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452317 — oldstandard-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947 (not an easy font to package and not baked yet IMHO. I put some comments in the bug but didn't start formal review, so this one is still open) ⇒ We need some reviewers. I can't review every single font package out there (especially since I'm not allowed to review my own). In other news more interesting material was added to the SIG wiki and a guideline change on fontconfig file location is still proceeding. And the big F11 package renaming is still planned, I just don't have the energy left to write about it. I hope you liked this report. It took a lot of work to be written. If you want some changes in the next edition, just ping me. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

2 4

Beteckna fonts - new wishlist font
by Máirín Duffy 11 Nov '08

11 Nov '08

Just filed a new wishlist font: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Beteckna_fonts I think for package cat's sake, surely a packager will step up? :) http://mihmo.livejournal.com/64301.html ~m

3 3

wishlist font: Rufscript - some wiki issues?
by Máirín Duffy 17 Oct '08

17 Oct '08

Hey folks, I filled out a wishlist page for Rufscript [1] but it doesn't seem to be showing up on the fonts wishlist category page [2] even though I know i added that category page to the bottom of the Rufscript fonts page. Any ideas on what's going on? Any help/ideas are appreciated! :) ~m [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rufscript_fonts [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Font_wishlist

3 2

Fontconfig rules installation guidelines change proposal
by Nicolas Mailhot 16 Oct '08

16 Oct '08

Hi all, I've queued the following small guideline change proposal for FPC consideration: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correctio… Please add comments, reactions and corrections in the wiki. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

2 4

Provide SFD files for Unikurd Web
by Michal Nowak 13 Oct '08

13 Oct '08

Hello. Could you please provide SFD files on the web, from which are TTF fonts generated, in case you use fontforge? It would be helpful to have them when creating package for Fedora. Thank You, Michal Nowak

2 1

Re: contact kurditgroup
by Michal Nowak 13 Oct '08

13 Oct '08

ping? On 09:57 Wed 16 Jul , Michal Nowak wrote: > Hi Bardaqani, > > sorry for not being clear on this for the first time. > > The problem with GPL licensed font is that when you for example > create PDF file (like a book) the you usually embed the font inside > the document and then is anyone able to see it correct even > when he does not have the Kurdish font in system (really good thing). > > But: When you have used GPL font (like Unikurd Web) inside PDF file > then you must license the file/book as a GPL too! And that's the > problem. > > Because of this there's special Font Exception which solves that > problem. > > What would help us a lot: > > 1. Re-license the fonts from 'GPLv3' to 'GPLv3 + exception'. > Here's the link to such text: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException > > 2. Write the text from the above link to the file gpl.txt inside > unikurdweb.zip file. > > > Solving points 1. and 2. will help us to distribute Your font in > Fedora and thus helpfull for Kurdish writing/speaking users in > general. > > Don't hesitate and write me in case of another questions or if > you need any further guidance. > > Thank you, > Michal > > > On 23:43 Tue 15 Jul , bardaqani bardaqani wrote: > > Dear Michal, > > How can help you? should we out the license inside a PDF or what? > > let me know > > > > cheers > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:47 AM, <mnowak(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > <div dir='rtl' style='direction: rtl; text-align: right' align='right'>.Hi, > > > I wish I package some Unikurd fonts to Fedora Linux distribution > > > > > > The problem is actually the chosen license, which is plain GPLv3. Here you > > > can read why is the license not so well usable for usage e.g. inside PDF. > > > > > > > > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException > > > > > > Please reply to my email mnowak(a)redhat.com for further information or > > > point me to someone whom can I talk to. > > > > > > Thank you for you time, > > > Michal Nowak > > > > > > Michal Nowak   uid:0 > > > > > > 2008-07-15 > > > </div> > > >

3 5

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts October 2008