fonts December 2008

fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
17 discussions

New font packaging guidelines
by Nicolas Mailhot 11 Jan '09

11 Jan '09

Dear all, As some of you may know, after more than a month of consultation, feedback and tweaking new font packaging guidelines have been approved by FESCO. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2… http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts New font packages in review must now conform to the new templates, and current packages be converted in rawhide by their maintainers. To track the conversion progress I will henceforth file tickets in bugzilla. The following packages have already been converted in rawhide and can serve as examples if the templates in the fontpackages-devel package are not clear enough: ❄ andika-fonts ❄ apanov-heuristica-fonts ❄ bitstream-vera-fonts ❄ charis-fonts ❄ dejavu-fonts ❄ ecolier-court-fonts ❄ edrip-fonts ❄ gfs-ambrosia-fonts ❄ gfs-artemisia-fonts ❄ gfs-baskerville-fonts ❄ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ❄ gfs-bodoni-fonts ❄ gfs-complutum-fonts ❄ gfs-didot-classic-fonts ❄ gfs-didot-fonts ❄ gfs-eustace-fonts ❄ gfs-fleischman-fonts ❄ gfs-garaldus-fonts ❄ gfs-gazis-fonts ❄ gfs-jackson-fonts ❄ gfs-neohellenic-fonts ❄ gfs-nicefore-fonts ❄ gfs-olga-fonts ❄ gfs-porson-fonts ❄ gfs-solomos-fonts ❄ gfs-theokritos-fonts ❄ stix-fonts ❄ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts Note that the discussed renames and splits have not been submitted for approval yet (I'm waiting for the rename process to be clarified), so the current change is purely technical. Nevertheless the new templates make creation of sub-packages considerably easier and safer, so I advice packagers to perform a split by family now if they don't mind. There was a broad consensus for the splitting in general, and the only thing that remains to be clarified before submission FPC-side is the wording of the few exceptions. Sincerely, -- Nicolas Mailhot

2 5

Re: [OpenFontLibrary] comic fonts :)
by Nicolas Mailhot 05 Jan '09

05 Jan '09

Le Mar 30 décembre 2008 16:54, Alexandre Prokoudine a écrit : > > OK, > > Somebody wanted a free comic font? :) > > http://serafettin.sourceforge.net/ BTW oget asked recently on IRC where the GPL-ing of TSCu_Comic font occurred and where it had been traced, so I'd be interested in this info. That would be useful to add in the fontlog. Also if someone has current contacts for past contributors, it would be nice to get the font exception added to the license. -- Nicolas Mailhot

4 4

First font-package
by Sven Lankes 04 Jan '09

04 Jan '09

Hi, I have started to look into font-packaging as the kde-sig needs a couple of fonts that are currently shipped with e.g. kdeedu and kdelibs packaged separately. The first font I am looking into is dustismo: (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dustimo_fonts) (Dustismo is currently shipped with kdeedu: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477406) I have a first spec-file here: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SPECS/dustismo.spec http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SRPM/dustismo-fonts-20030207-1.fc11.src.rpm As my knowledge about fonts is basically zero I'd like to get some feedback on the spec-file before submitting this for a package review. The wishlist wiki-page mentions "GPL with font exception" for this font - but the font-exception is not in the license that is shipped with the fonts (GPLv2+) so this is probably wrong. The last update of this font was in 2003 - it is currently only available on 3rd-party font-sites. There doesn't seem to be an 'upstream' anymore. There are two things I wasn't quite able figure out using the fontsig-wiki-pages: 1. Is it acceptable to ship a font with only the ttf and no other 'source'? The spec template has this: > Building fonts from sources is always preferred. For GPLed or LGPLed > fonts this is required by the license. 2. I do need some help with filling the description with something meaningful Again quoting the spec-template: > Font descriptions must detail information on the font style, > Unicode coverage, and intended use[3] to help users choose the > right packages to install. ... What other information could/should I add to the description 3. fontconfig My feeling is that I don't need any fontconfig-files for a font like this. Am I right? Thanks for your feedback. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: sven(a)lankes.net

2 1

fontpackages template warnings
by Sarantis Paskalis 31 Dec '08

31 Dec '08

Hello, I am converting my font packages to the new guidelines and hit some rpmlint warnings that appear to be template related. Specifically, I followed the /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec from fontpackages-devel that creates absolute symlinks between /etc/fonts/conf.d/$font.conf and /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/$font.conf rpmlint moans about the absolute symlink and wants a relative one. I don't really have an opinion about that and could not find any fedora policy on this one [1]. The other thing is a minor patch that distinguishes variable from macro in the same template (attached) Thanks, Sarantis [1] symlink rpmlint ticket http://rpmlint.zarb.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/ticket/25

2 3

Re: New font packaging guidelines
by Nicolas Mailhot 23 Dec '08

23 Dec '08

Le Mar 23 décembre 2008 01:53, Jeff Spaleta a écrit : > python-matplotlib is carrying its own fonts around, which I didn't > catch. My bad. So thanks for doing the auto-review. We don't have any check to catch non-fonts packages that bundle fonts, even though we know that causes problems later, so really we are a bit under-tooled here :( Anyway, I'd like to remind every packager that decides to drop the TTF fonts he shipped in his non-font-package, that's it's a good idea to add a dep on the appropriate DejaVu family, and not on freefonts or bitstream vera (unless the package has specific style or metric requirements). DejaVu is in the default install set, the others aren't, so adding them as deps will result in more resource use mirror and user side (also freefonts will probably be renamed/reorganised before the end of the cycle). In Rawhide dejavu has been split in three packages so you only need to depend on the font family you actually need, not the full set. Sincerely, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Re: New font packaging guidelines
by Nicolas Mailhot 23 Dec '08

23 Dec '08

Le lundi 22 décembre 2008 à 15:53 -0900, Jeff Spaleta a écrit : > One thing, can you look over the fonts included in matplotlib and see > if there are any fonts which are not-duplicates of existing packaged > fonts? Sure, just post the font names or filenames here or in the bug (otherwise google and repoquery are your friends) -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Help with new font packaging guidelines (choosing font family)
by Marcin Garski 22 Dec '08

22 Dec '08

Hi, I'm trying to convert my packages (jomolhari-fonts, tibetan-machine-uni-fonts) to new font packaging guidelines. I've encounter one problem that stops me from filling all guidelines. I don't know the right font family (serif, sans serif, other?) for both fonts, so I can't create a fontconf files. How can I find/known this font family (both fonts represents Tibetan script which I don't know)? BTW. If both fonts are installed TMU is selected as a primary font for displaying Dzongkha text, is there a way to set fontconfig to prefer Jomolhari when dealing with Dzongkha text and TMU when displaying Tibetan text (Jomolhari is better for Dzongkha text and TMU for Tibetan text). -- Best regards Marcin Garski

2 2

Font package splitting clarification
by Nicolas Mailhot 22 Dec '08

22 Dec '08

[Drat. I *knew* I had forgotten to spam one list] Hi all, Since the discussion on font package splitting rules seems to be exhausted, and since no one stepped up with an obviously better proposal than mine, I've queued the following FPC-side: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_… I've tried to integrate all the exceptions that were brought up during the discussion and that were consensual, and to separate the rules from their rationale (so packagers in a hurry only need to read the first part). I've ended up with four simple master rules that should not be open to interpretation. Best regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Font package naming guidelines
by Nicolas Mailhot 22 Dec '08

22 Dec '08

Hi, Since there has been no more remarks on the clarified font package naming rules discussed as part of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes_(2008-1… I've queued the following for approval FPC-side: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_(2008-12-… Except for the comps changes which seem not baked yet, that concludes the fonts-related guidelines changes and clarifications that were proposed for F11. Sincerely, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Font package splitting clarification
by Nicolas Mailhot 21 Dec '08

21 Dec '08

Hi all, Since the discussion on font package splitting rules seems to be exhausted, and since no one stepped up with an obviously better proposal than mine, I've queued the following FPC-side: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_… I've tried to integrate all the exceptions that were brought up during the discussion and that were consensual, and to separate the rules from their rationale (so packagers in a hurry only need to read the first part). I've ended up with four simple master rules that should not be open to interpretation. Best regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts December 2008