FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-26-2008, 06:47 PM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default The fonts SIG irregular status report

Hi all,

I haven't been too active on the SIG lately for lack of free time.
However others (who rock) have been busy working on fonts packages, so
here is a long delayed status update that will try to clear the backlog:


▪▪ General status

— We have 56 entries in the wishlist. Even counting entries the packager
forgot to recategorize (grrr) I think the wishlist is still growing
faster than we package fonts. More active packagers are obviously
needed.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Font_wishlist

— We have 58 entries in the packaged list.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Packaged_fonts
It is still nicely growing, and Fedora 9 level reviews like this one are
already obsolete
http://www.advogato.org/person/yosch/diary.html?start=4

— We've created 55 new packages since the start of the cycle (a wishlist
entry can translate in several packages). That's pretty awesome and way
past the 32 packages mark of the last report (and way past previous
Fedora cycle accomplishments). Special kuddos to Dennis Jang for
packaging the huge UN Korean font set (though he needs to update his
wiki pages). Others didn't attain the level of awesomeness of Dennis but
still did pretty well.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_inclusion_history


▪▪ Package status

▪▪▪ Packaged, with bugs still open:
— sportrop-fonts,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456345
— asana-math-fonts,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455153
— icelandic-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445261

⇒ Packagers please close your review bugs when the packaging is
finished.


▪▪▪ Packaged, but not referenced in Fedora 10 comps
— myanmar3-unicode-fonts

That was short most packagers seem to apply
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Comps_fonts_rules
without prodding on my part. Good job and please fix this one.


▪▪▪ Packaged, with wiki page not finalized or missing

— thibault-fonts-essays1743,
— thibault-fonts-isabella,
— thibault-fonts-rockets,
— thibault-fonts-staypuft,
— un-fonts,
— un-extra-fonts,
— icelandic-fonts
— smc-fonts
– darkgarden-fonts
– sportrop-fonts
— myanmar3-unicode-fonts

⇒ Please make sure each font package has a completed wiki page (Packaged
fonts category) that can be used by the docs team in release notes and
other documents


▪▪▪ Reviewed fonts waiting for packager action
— bitstream-vera-fonts (old FE-MERGE ticket, needs someone to help
Behdad co-maintain the package)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225618
— sil-gentium-basic-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527
— hiran-perizia-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457709
— cf-bonveno-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457955
— arabeyes-thabit-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139
— arabeyes-mothana-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462711
— alee-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466193
— hiran-rufscript-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467507

⇒ You know what you need to do


▪▪▪ Approved fonts not pushed yet
— unikurd-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457281


▪▪▪ Waiting for a reviewer
— heuristica-fonts (just cleared by FE-LEGAL)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452317
— oldstandard-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947
(not an easy font to package and not baked yet IMHO. I put some
comments in the bug but didn't start formal review, so this one is still
open)

⇒ We need some reviewers. I can't review every single font package out
there (especially since I'm not allowed to review my own).

In other news more interesting material was added to the SIG wiki and a
guideline change on fontconfig file location is still proceeding. And
the big F11 package renaming is still planned, I just don't have the
energy left to write about it.

I hope you liked this report. It took a lot of work to be written. If
you want some changes in the next edition, just ping me.

Regards,

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 10-26-2008, 08:19 PM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default The fonts SIG irregular status report

Le dimanche 26 octobre 2008 * 20:47 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :

> — We have 56 entries in the wishlist.

Actually we have 57 since Behdad requested FersiWeb fonts and no one has
worked on it so far
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Farsiweb_fonts

Regards,

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-10-2008, 10:58 PM
Jens Petersen
 
Default The fonts SIG irregular status report

> Actually we have 57 since Behdad requested FersiWeb fonts and no one

I should not be that hard really to generate a script to generate a skeleton spec file for any given font .

I know some packaging people frown on automated packaging but this might help lower the barrier to font packaging for which creating rpm's is really quite easy compared to general packaging. Such spec files would still need to go through being tweaked and polished during review of course but it would make it easier for people to get started I think.

Perhaps it is something we (Fonts SIG) should consider working on?

Jens

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-11-2008, 08:02 AM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default The fonts SIG irregular status report

Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 18:58 -0500, Jens Petersen a crit :
> > Actually we have 57 since Behdad requested FersiWeb fonts and no one
>
> I should not be that hard really to generate a script to generate a
> skeleton spec file for any given font .
>
> I know some packaging people frown on automated packaging but this
> might help lower the barrier to font packaging for which creating
> rpm's is really quite easy compared to general packaging. Such spec
> files would still need to go through being tweaked and polished during
> review of course but it would make it easier for people to get started
> I think.

Since I do a lot of font reviews I'd like the polishing to be done
before a spec hit bugzilla

Anyway, with the experience of recent font reviews (un fonts in
particular), I've written some macros and spec templates that push all
the fc-cache scriptlet magic out of specfiles and should be a little
easier for new maintainers to work on.

They still require a human to
1. decide which font file goes in which (sub)package
2. decide which fontconfig generic family to associate with each font
3. write summaries and descriptions
4. do some legal auditing

Quite frankly, appart from 1. that could possibly be automated by
writing some script that uses fontconfig to tell people what font files
declare the same font family, I don't see how we could go much farther
(maybe generating the wiki page when it does not exist?)

Please review the files at
http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/
and in particular the rpm-fonts package and how it is used by the other
packages.

I don't like the fontconfig file symlinking stuff much, if you can find
a simpler way to express it I'd be happy to change it.

> Perhaps it is something we (Fonts SIG) should consider working on?

I don't really know what parts new font packagers find hardest, I'd love
to see some feedback on the list.

As I wrote before, I don't think we could win a lot by automating. But
anyway, it's Fedora and everyone is free to work on what he likes, so if
you think automating would help far from me to stop you I wouldn't
mind being proven wrong.


Regards,

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-18-2008, 07:08 AM
Jens Petersen
 
Default The fonts SIG irregular status report

> As I wrote before, I don't think we could win a lot by automating.

Well I tend to agree now: a good set of templates and rpm macros seems the right way to go.

Jens

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-18-2008, 07:32 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default The fonts SIG irregular status report

On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 03:08 -0500, Jens Petersen wrote:
> > As I wrote before, I don't think we could win a lot by automating.
>
> Well I tend to agree now: a good set of templates and rpm macros seems the right way to go.
No, rpm macros are the road to ruin a distro.

Once they are used in a distro, they impose major portability issues and
are close to impossible to get rid.

Ralf



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-18-2008, 09:11 AM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default The fonts SIG irregular status report

Le Mar 18 novembre 2008 09:32, Ralf Corsepius a crit :
>
> On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 03:08 -0500, Jens Petersen wrote:
>> > As I wrote before, I don't think we could win a lot by automating.
>>
>> Well I tend to agree now: a good set of templates and rpm macros
>> seems the right way to go.
> No, rpm macros are the road to ruin a distro.
>
> Once they are used in a distro, they impose major portability issues
> and are close to impossible to get rid.

Unfortunately, deploying fonts requires scriptlets to manage
thefontconfig cache, font packages are often huge and need splitting,
and sriplets + subpackages = boom without a minimal automation.

Please review
http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/rpm-fonts-1.8-1.fc11.src.rpm
and the other files in this directory, and propose ameliorations
before we make it the backbone of our Fedora 11 font packages.

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-18-2008, 09:33 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default The fonts SIG irregular status report

On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 11:11 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Mar 18 novembre 2008 09:32, Ralf Corsepius a crit :
> >
> > On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 03:08 -0500, Jens Petersen wrote:
> >> > As I wrote before, I don't think we could win a lot by automating.
> >>
> >> Well I tend to agree now: a good set of templates and rpm macros
> >> seems the right way to go.
> > No, rpm macros are the road to ruin a distro.
> >
> > Once they are used in a distro, they impose major portability issues
> > and are close to impossible to get rid.
>
> Unfortunately, deploying fonts requires scriptlets to manage
> thefontconfig cache, font packages are often huge and need splitting,
> and sriplets + subpackages = boom without a minimal automation.
>
> Please review
> http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/rpm-fonts-1.8-1.fc11.src.rpm
> and the other files in this directory, and propose ameliorations
> before we make it the backbone of our Fedora 11 font packages.
I will vote against this proposal and this package.

Rationale:
All these macros do is causing further pollution of the rpm macros,
break many details (try rpmbuild --define '_datadir /opt/foo' and add
further cross distro-portability issues (Consider RHEL3 or rpm's from
other distros).

May be you recall the issues with Mandrake / Mandriva macros and with
SuSE-macros, now you seem to be wanting to conduct Fedora into the same
direction.


Ralf



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-18-2008, 09:46 AM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default The fonts SIG irregular status report

Le Mar 18 novembre 2008 11:33, Ralf Corsepius a crit :
>
> On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 11:11 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>> Le Mar 18 novembre 2008 09:32, Ralf Corsepius a crit :

>> Please review
>> http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/rpm-fonts-1.8-1.fc11.src.rpm
>> and the other files in this directory, and propose ameliorations
>> before we make it the backbone of our Fedora 11 font packages.
> I will vote against this proposal and this package.
>
> Rationale:
> All these macros do is causing further pollution of the rpm macros,
> break many details (try rpmbuild --define '_datadir /opt/foo' and add
> further cross distro-portability issues (Consider RHEL3 or rpm's from
> other distros).
>
> May be you recall the issues with Mandrake / Mandriva macros and with
> SuSE-macros, now you seem to be wanting to conduct Fedora into the
> same direction.

What I've seen last year is:
1. packagers reinvent those independently (usually with bugs), so
there's no drawbacks and lots of benefits in providing them a clean
audited centralised version instead.
2. when you push too much logic in individual packages, this logic is
not updated (when fc-cache arguments change)
3. the current guidelines are not easy enough for most packagers.

If you don't agree with my solution to those problems please be
constructive and propose another better one.

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-18-2008, 09:58 AM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default The fonts SIG irregular status report

> Le Mar 18 novembre 2008 11:33, Ralf Corsepius a crit :

>> I will vote against this proposal and this package.
>>
>> Rationale:
>> All these macros do is causing further pollution of the rpm macros,
>> break many details (try rpmbuild --define '_datadir /opt/foo' and
>> add
>> further cross distro-portability issues (Consider RHEL3 or rpm's
>> from
>> other distros).
>>
>> May be you recall the issues with Mandrake / Mandriva macros and
>> with
>> SuSE-macros, now you seem to be wanting to conduct Fedora into the
>> same direction.

Also if you would just look at it you'd see the whole thing is totally
autonomous from the rpm package, and could be deployed as-is on other
distributions releases (or plain other distributions)

Taking of course into account all fontconfig versions are not equal
and one needs to adapt the base package to the capabilities of the
fontconfig provided by the distro he targets.

--
Nicolas Mailhot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:17 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org