gach-dev January 2009

gach-dev@lists.fedorahosted.org

4 participants
5 discussions

renaming files and classes
by Rakesh Pandit 21 Jan '09

21 Jan '09

I am doing a mass renaming of Rom -> Gach, be it classes or file names. We also need to seal "Application" part and start working on guidelines. -- Cheers, Rakesh

2 2

[review-o-matic] regarding fedora feature F11
by Rakesh Pandit 21 Jan '09

21 Jan '09

I am proposing review-o-matic as fedora infra feature for F11. The proposal is at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ReviewOMatic Before going for public discussion, I would like comments, suggestions, errors etc for improvement. -- Cheers, Rakesh Pandit

1 1

project review-o-matic renamed to "Gach"
by Rakesh Pandit 20 Jan '09

20 Jan '09

Hello list, Review-o-matic project is now renamed to "Gach"[1] and our mailing list is at gach-dev[1]. Anonymous checkout works using: git clone git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/gach.git/ Developer checkout: git clone ssh://<fasusername>@git.fedorahosted.org/git/gach.git/ Will update wiki in some time. [1] https://fedorahosted.org/gach/ [2] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/gach-dev -- rakesh

1 0

[review-o-matic] openSUSE Lizards » RPMLINT Wiki Side overworked
by sankarshan 08 Jan '09

08 Jan '09

http://lizards.opensuse.org/2009/01/08/rpmlint-wiki-side-overworked/ -- http://www.gutenberg.net - Fine literature digitally re-published http://www.plos.org - Public Library of Science http://www.creativecommons.org - Flexible copyright for creative work

1 0

[review-o-matic] Font guideline tests for review-o-matic
by Nicolas Mailhot 07 Jan '09

07 Jan '09

Dear all, I've just posted the following in https://fedorahosted.org/review-o-matic/ticket/4 Review-o-matic should perform Fedora font guidelines tests when processing packages that include fonts (current common font files have the ttf, otf, ttc, pfb, and pfa extensions) 1. Not real font file tests: If the files are not actual files but symlinks to something else in /usr/share/fonts the following reminders apply (they're not official font guidelines, since symlinks are not actual font files) 1. The package providing the target of the symlinks should be part of the package dependencies 1. If this package is one of the Free fonts, Bistream Vera, Linux Libertine, DejaVu? LGC ... packages, remind the packager the default Fedora fonts are Dejavu so it's much better to depend on a Dejavu package as it's likely to be already installed on user systems and perfectly suitable for a default font with no stylistic requirements 1. Remind the packager to ping upstream to add fontconfig support to its app so the symlinks can be dropped altoguether 2. Actual font file (and official guidelines) tests: If the files are real files, the following tests apply 1. Package/subpackage layout should be checked against http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_… (approved today by FPC) 1. For pure font packages (not font subpackages of non-font packages) package naming should be checked against http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_(2008-12-… (approved today by FPC) 1. File packaging should be checked against http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template or http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts (basically, use of the macros and deps defined in the templates) 1. If a font (sub)package is missing a fontconfig file, remind the packager it would be a good idea to add it Current manual auditing of existing packages (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=477044) is unearthing lots of duplicate copies of (old) Vera/DejaVu/FreeSans fonts, font files we should never have shipped and are a legal problem (Arial Narrow), and fonts we are better of packaging distro-wide instead of hiding inside apps. So there is a real benefit to perform this kind of test regularly. Sincerely, -- Nicolas Mailhot

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

gach-dev January 2009