Hi all,
I would like to package rubygem-prawn (PDF generator) [1, 2] for Fedora, but I am unsure about the font files that are bundled in the .gem file.
There are many .afm font files which seem not to be considered as font files according to the guidelines [3] as Miroslav in the review [2] already pointed out. Is this true and is it then fine to package them normally as any other files? Or is there a special approach of bundling/packaging text-based font files like .afm?
I opened an upstream issue regarding their licensing [4] and it seems to be fine for .afm files they ship (given that we include the corresponding "MustRead.html" license file). Overall I am trying to find out how to not ship them at all, but the question still remains: how to properly package text-based fonts?
Thanks Josef
[1] https://github.com/prawnpdf/prawn [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883437 [3] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#What_is_a_f... [4] https://github.com/prawnpdf/prawn/issues/474
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 06:52:34AM -0400, Josef Stribny wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to package rubygem-prawn (PDF generator) [1, 2] for Fedora, but I am unsure about the font files that are bundled in the .gem file.
There are many .afm font files which seem not to be considered as font files according to the guidelines [3] as Miroslav in the review [2] already pointed out. Is this true and is it then fine to package them normally as any other files? Or is there a special approach of bundling/packaging text-based font files like .afm?
Bundling would be the wrong connclusion to draw. nim should speak to this but iirc, his position would be that the software should be converted to use ttf and otf fonts instead of afm and the fonts, if needsed, should be converted from afm to otf.
-Toshio
Le Mar 30 avril 2013 09:00, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 06:52:34AM -0400, Josef Stribny wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to package rubygem-prawn (PDF generator) [1, 2] for Fedora, but I am unsure about the font files that are bundled in the .gem file.
There are many .afm font files which seem not to be considered as font files according to the guidelines [3] as Miroslav in the review [2] already pointed out. Is this true and is it then fine to package them normally as any other files? Or is there a special approach of bundling/packaging text-based font files like .afm?
Bundling would be the wrong connclusion to draw. nim should speak to this but iirc, his position would be that the software should be converted to use ttf and otf fonts instead of afm and the fonts, if needsed, should be converted from afm to otf.
Right, I don't care much about afm files, most of our apps can not use them, you get all the hassles of standard fonts without the satisfaction they'll be useful to a large range of users. So basically: 1. there is no special place where afm files should be put on the filesystem and 2. the legal problems are the same.
Regards,
Hi,
thanks both of you for your thoughts.
Since I really tried to persuade upstream to abandon .afm files (but failed doing so) I think I will bundle them this time (until there is a better way of doing so). Converting them unfortunately doesn't make any sense in this example, because they need and want to have .afm in their gem.
Thank you Josef
----- Original Message ----- From: "Nicolas Mailhot" nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net To: "Discussion of RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora" packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Monday, May 6, 2013 5:28:49 PM Subject: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Bundled text-based .afm font files
Le Mar 30 avril 2013 09:00, Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 06:52:34AM -0400, Josef Stribny wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to package rubygem-prawn (PDF generator) [1, 2] for Fedora, but I am unsure about the font files that are bundled in the .gem file.
There are many .afm font files which seem not to be considered as font files according to the guidelines [3] as Miroslav in the review [2] already pointed out. Is this true and is it then fine to package them normally as any other files? Or is there a special approach of bundling/packaging text-based font files like .afm?
Bundling would be the wrong connclusion to draw. nim should speak to this but iirc, his position would be that the software should be converted to use ttf and otf fonts instead of afm and the fonts, if needsed, should be converted from afm to otf.
Right, I don't care much about afm files, most of our apps can not use them, you get all the hassles of standard fonts without the satisfaction they'll be useful to a large range of users. So basically: 1. there is no special place where afm files should be put on the filesystem and 2. the legal problems are the same.
Regards,
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Josef Stribny -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Toshio Kuratomi