Hi,
I would like to propose adding the following text to our "Package Naming Guidelines". http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines
''' == Fonts Packages ==
Font packages should be named with the upstream name appended with `-fonts`.
Examples: {{{ bitmap-fonts dejavu-lgc-fonts ghostscript-fonts urw-fonts xorg-x11-fonts }}}
'''
Should the text discuss what to do when the upstream name contains the word "font" already?
See https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00794.ht... and https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-March/msg00262.html for some recent discussion of <upstreamname>-fonts vs fonts-<language> and "-fonts" vs "-font" for singlet font packages.
Comments or objections?
Jens
ps We might even consider renaming some of our "fonts-*" packages to follow this naming scheme for F8.
Hi,
The Fonts scriptlet on Packaging/ScriptletSnippets should list the following requires too:
Requires(post): fontconfig Requires(postun): fontconfig
Jens
Le mardi 10 avril 2007 à 12:24 +1000, Jens Petersen a écrit :
The Fonts scriptlet on Packaging/ScriptletSnippets should list the following requires too:
Requires(post): fontconfig Requires(postun): fontconfig
Nope. Their whole point is not to add a fontconfig dep to font packages
Le Mer 11 avril 2007 03:54, Jens Petersen a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Nope. Their whole point is not to add a fontconfig dep to font packages
Should bugs be filed against all fonts packages that currently require fontconfig?
IMHO yes. When this was formalized (around Bitstream Vera inclusion in fedora.us then FC) non adherence of font packages to any specific renderer was an explicit objective. (I'm speaking of truetype/opentype packages there, core fonts are a lost cause).
The most one can do is conflict with old fontconfig packages if the rpm dumps a conf file in /etc/fonts, since fontconfig syntax has evolved over time.
Hi Nicolas, On 4/11/07, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net wrote:
Le Mer 11 avril 2007 03:54, Jens Petersen a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Nope. Their whole point is not to add a fontconfig dep to font packages
Should bugs be filed against all fonts packages that currently require fontconfig?
IMHO yes. When this was formalized (around Bitstream Vera inclusion in fedora.us then FC) non adherence of font packages to any specific renderer was an explicit objective. (I'm speaking of truetype/opentype packages there, core fonts are a lost cause).
The most one can do is conflict with old fontconfig packages if the rpm dumps a conf file in /etc/fonts, since fontconfig syntax has evolved over time.
Can you please provide more information on this issue of not having "Requires: fontconfig" in fonts packages? Currently I am in confusion on whether to drop fontconfig as Requires or not and still packaging guidelines is missing this issue to address it. I am sure many new packages got added to Fedora recently and many will be coming in future. But still we are missing proper fonts guidelines page. I think its good if we have wiki page that will describe and give sample SPEC for fonts packages including how to handle license and its naming issues for new coming fonts package reviews. Regards, Parag.
Parag N(पराग़) さんは書きました:
Can you please provide more information on this issue of not having "Requires: fontconfig" in fonts packages?
The argument I can see for having "Requires(post): fontconfig", etc is that potentially some fonts packages could get installed before fontconfig does and so not get included in the cache?
Jens
On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 15:37 +1000, Jens Petersen wrote:
Parag N(पराग़) さんは書きました:
Can you please provide more information on this issue of not having "Requires: fontconfig" in fonts packages?
The argument I can see for having "Requires(post): fontconfig", etc is that potentially some fonts packages could get installed before fontconfig does and so not get included in the cache?
Jens
If fontconfig gets installed later, it should create all the required caches in %post:
# Force regeneration of all fontconfig cache files
Le Mer 19 septembre 2007 07:37, Jens Petersen a écrit :
Parag N(पराग़) さんは書きました:
Can you please provide more information on this issue of not having "Requires: fontconfig" in fonts packages?
The argument I can see for having "Requires(post): fontconfig", etc is that potentially some fonts packages could get installed before fontconfig does and so not get included in the cache?
Fontconfig creates its cache on install. There is no need for Requires(post): fontconfig
Since there were some interested replies to my font SIG proposal but no deluge of would-be SIG contributors I'll probably document in my wiki space with no particular urgency
Nicolas Mailhot さんは書きました:
Fontconfig creates its cache on install. There is no need for Requires(post): fontconfig
Ok, that is good then.
One other small thing: except a few fonts, it seems only fontconfig currently owns /usr/share/fonts. Should it be owned by filesystem instead?
Since there were some interested replies to my font SIG proposal but no deluge of would-be SIG contributors I'll probably document in my wiki space with no particular urgency
Ok, I see. If you like I would be happy to put the documentation of fonts for different languages, etc under I18N/Fonts in the wiki. :)
Jens
Le Ven 21 septembre 2007 11:54, Jens Petersen a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot さんは書きました:
Fontconfig creates its cache on install. There is no need for Requires(post): fontconfig
Ok, that is good then.
One other small thing: except a few fonts, it seems only fontconfig currently owns /usr/share/fonts. Should it be owned by filesystem instead?
I didn't check but if its not owned by filesystem it should be
Since there were some interested replies to my font SIG proposal but no deluge of would-be SIG contributors I'll probably document in my wiki space with no particular urgency
Ok, I see. If you like I would be happy to put the documentation of fonts for different languages, etc under I18N/Fonts in the wiki. :)
Well it seems this message has the intended effect of getting a few more people react, to I guess we may still get a font SIG :) At least I'll look this week-end what is required to formally create one, and start working on the wiki pages
Regards,
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Jens-Ulrik Petersen -
Matthias Clasen -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Parag Nemade