Hi!
Houston, we've got a problem ;) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179439#c7
Do we have any naming guidelines concerning packages with fonts? There is some inconsistency:
[y4kk0@X ~]$ repoquery -qa | grep fonts bitmap-fonts-0:0.3-4.noarch fonts-gujarati-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-tamil-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-14-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-bengali-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-15-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch kon2-fonts-0:0.3.9b-26.i386 fonts-japanese-0:0.20050222-3.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-9-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-syriac-0:6.8.2-1.noarch gentium-fonts-0:1.02-2.noarch hunky-fonts-0:0.3.1-2.fc4.noarch taipeifonts-0:1.2-26.noarch ghostscript-fonts-0:5.50-13.noarch fonts-KOI8-R-100dpi-0:1.0-7.noarch fonts-ISO8859-2-0:1.0-14.noarch fonts-arabic-0:1.5-3.noarch mgopen-fonts-0:0.20050515-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-9-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch tetex-fonts-0:3.0-9.FC4.i386 fonts-xorg-cyrillic-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-punjabi-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-hebrew-0:0.100-4.noarch fonts-chinese-0:2.15-2.noarch fonts-hebrew-fancy-0:0.101-2.fc4.noarch fonts-ISO8859-2-75dpi-0:1.0-14.noarch fonts-hindi-0:1.10-2.noarch bitmap-fonts-cjk-0:0.3-4.noarch fonts-xorg-base-0:6.8.2-1.noarch dejavu-fonts-0:2.2-3.fc4.noarch fonts-xorg-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-ISO8859-2-100dpi-0:1.0-14.noarch fonts-korean-0:1.0.11-4.noarch fonts-xorg-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-15-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch urw-fonts-0:2.3-1.noarch fonts-KOI8-R-0:1.0-7.noarch mplayer-fonts-0:1.1-0.lvn.3.4.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-2-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-KOI8-R-75dpi-0:1.0-7.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-2-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-truetype-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-14-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch bitstream-vera-fonts-0:1.10-5.noarch mathml-fonts-0:1.0-19.fc4.noarch [y4kk0@X ~]$
Thanks, Dawid
On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 01:07 +0100, Dawid Gajownik wrote:
Hi!
Houston, we've got a problem ;) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179439#c7
Do we have any naming guidelines concerning packages with fonts? There is some inconsistency:
Any chance you can break those up into Fedora Core and Fedora Extras?
I only have any control over the latter. :)
~spot
Dnia 02/04/2006 01:26 AM, Użytkownik Tom 'spot' Callaway napisał:
Any chance you can break those up into Fedora Core and Fedora Extras?
Shure :)
[y4kk0@X ~]$ repoquery -qa --repoid=extras | grep fonts hunky-fonts-0:0.3.1-2.fc4.noarch gentium-fonts-0:1.02-2.noarch fonts-hebrew-fancy-0:0.101-2.fc4.noarch mgopen-fonts-0:0.20050515-1.noarch mathml-fonts-0:1.0-19.fc4.noarch dejavu-fonts-0:2.2-3.fc4.noarch [y4kk0@X ~]$ repoquery -qa --repoid=base | grep fonts bitmap-fonts-0:0.3-4.noarch fonts-gujarati-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-tamil-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-KOI8-R-75dpi-0:1.0-7.noarch fonts-bengali-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-15-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-2-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-14-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-japanese-0:0.20050222-3.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-9-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-syriac-0:6.8.2-1.noarch ghostscript-fonts-0:5.50-13.noarch fonts-KOI8-R-100dpi-0:1.0-7.noarch fonts-arabic-0:1.5-3.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-9-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch tetex-fonts-0:3.0-4.i386 fonts-xorg-cyrillic-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-punjabi-0:1.10-2.noarch fonts-hebrew-0:0.100-4.noarch fonts-chinese-0:2.15-2.noarch fonts-ISO8859-2-75dpi-0:1.0-14.noarch fonts-hindi-0:1.10-2.noarch bitmap-fonts-cjk-0:0.3-4.noarch fonts-xorg-base-0:6.8.2-1.noarch taipeifonts-0:1.2-26.noarch fonts-xorg-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-ISO8859-2-100dpi-0:1.0-14.noarch fonts-korean-0:1.0.11-4.noarch fonts-xorg-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-15-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-KOI8-R-0:1.0-7.noarch kon2-fonts-0:0.3.9b-26.i386 fonts-ISO8859-2-0:1.0-14.noarch urw-fonts-0:2.3-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-2-75dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-truetype-0:6.8.2-1.noarch fonts-xorg-ISO8859-14-100dpi-0:6.8.2-1.noarch bitstream-vera-fonts-0:1.10-5.noarch [y4kk0@X ~]$
I only have any control over the latter. :)
IMHO it would be nice to have the same rules in Core and in Extras ;)
Regards, Dawid
Le samedi 04 février 2006 à 01:07 +0100, Dawid Gajownik a écrit :
Hi!
Houston, we've got a problem ;) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179439#c7
Do we have any naming guidelines concerning packages with fonts? There is some inconsistency:
Nothing new, the "problem" was discussed when vera got in fedora.us and then again when it was merged upstream (you can look up the bugzilla entries/ ML threads)
FC tends to put fonts- first except when it's a subpackage. This helps when you do a stupid sort (but in the days of autodep resolvers the use of basic sort is somehow limited - tools are smarter nowadays)
(Note this is a new rule, for a very long time RHL/FC didn't have any particular rule)
FE (and yes I have my share of responsibility there) tends to put -fonts last as its more consistent with english, FC font subpackages and external repositories (in the vera case bistream-vera-fonts already existed in the helix gnome repo)
My own take is live and let live, the benefits of harmonising are not worth the renaming pains.
On Sat, 2006-02-04 at 01:07 +0100, Dawid Gajownik wrote:
Hi!
Houston, we've got a problem ;) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179439#c7
I suppose I was a little overzealous in interpreting the Addon Packages rule at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-e865dfbf5f.... I honestly don't mind it being -fonts.
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dawid Gajownik -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Tom Callaway