Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
 

Hi,

If you've received this message directly (not via a list) you're
concerned by the font package changes proposed for Fedora 11:
— the changes touch one of your packages or
— the changes touch/need one component you're lead on (comps, packagedb,
rpm…)

Please reply to the fedora fonts list however to keep the discussion in
a single place.

The complete list of proposed changes is published there
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes

All is open to discussion, and it's on a wiki page, so don't hesitate to
complete/correct it.

This list is pretty ambitious and requires buy-in by many people to be
executed properly. Not to mention that the Fedora 11 cycle will start
soon. Please do respond to the list, stating:
— your requests and comments (if any)
— if you will change your packages along those lines for Fedora 11
— if you will allow other packagers to change your packages in your
stead
— if you totally object to one part of the proposal, and why

Unless there is strong opposition I will apply those changes to my own
packages (and to vera and liberation if their maintainers are ok with
it). However, to be effective, other packagers must change their
packages too.


▶▶▶ Short proposal summary:

â–¶ package renames, to fix the naming discrepancies that have crept in
with the repository growth
(different packagers followed different conventions)

â–¶ package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora
users

â–¶ new comps groups, to group related fonts together
(gfs fonts, sil fonts, etc)

â–¶ reminder of the ongoing fontconfig guidelines change
(still waiting for fontconfig upstream to comment on)

â–¶ new packaging template and macros
(to put in rpm? some other place?)


▶▶▶ Rationale:

â–¶ help spins and users

Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias,
without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a
valid setup.

â–¶ help packagers and package reviewers

Inconsistent repository and fuzzy rules mean package reviews drag on
while the kinks are ironed out, which is not fun at all for everyone
involved. Much better to have clear conventions packagers can identify
before hitting review stage.


▶▶▶ Proof of concept:

Dejavu has been used to proof the concepts in rawhide (cf the wiki page)


I hope those proposals will be agreeable to everyone.

Regards,

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

Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
 

regarding arabeyes-kacst-fonts
kacst fonts are not from arabeyes they are only hosted there
the fonts are by www.kacst.edu.sa/default.aspx

rpm -qi kacst-fonts-2.0-1.fc10.noarch
...
from the King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology(kacst).

arabeyes produce two types of fonts: core and decorative and I packed
them for ojuba, here is the .spec file (attached)

I would love to maintain it for the fedora
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
 

Le dimanche 09 novembre 2008 à 16:42 +0200, Muayyad AlSadi a écrit :
> regarding arabeyes-kacst-fonts
> kacst fonts are not from arabeyes they are only hosted there
> the fonts are by www.kacst.edu.sa/default.aspx
>
> rpm -qi kacst-fonts-2.0-1.fc10.noarch
> ...
> from the King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology(kacst).

I suppose that if kacst lets arabeyes distribute them they are not
unfriendly with each other. Open Font Library likewise only
re-distributes other people work, I guess the prefix in this case would
mainly be there to denote some sort of oflb or arabeyes editorial work

Anyway, duly noted, if more people feel karcst should not be prefixed I
guess we'll make it and exception (but I'd love to have a clear simple
common sense naming rule).

> arabeyes produce two types of fonts: core and decorative and I packed
> them for ojuba, here is the .spec file (attached)

Some (but not all) of those fonts are currently in review:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462711

You can either work with the current would-be packager (and become
co-maintainer) or submit a competing proposal (some reviews never go
anywhere, unfortunately, don't wait for others to do the stuff you care
about).

The path to get a font in Fedora is documented there:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle

We mostly ask packagers to adhere as closely as possible to the official
spec template, create a wiki page that can be referenced in release
notes, and avoid bundling different fonts in a single package.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Annotated_fonts_spec_template

When there is little deviation from guidelines reviews tend to be quick
(unfortunately the reverse is also true)

> I would love to maintain it for the fedora

New font packagers are always welcome! Your spec is not acceptable
as-is, but if you're motivated I think you'll find creating
guidelines-conformant spec files is not too hard.

Regards,

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

Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
 

On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 12:09 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:


> â–¶ package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora
> users

Can I voice some doubt about the usefulness of this ? Going to your wiki
page, I read that dejavu has been split into ~10 subpackages. If this
happens to all font packages, it will blow up metadata and package lists
and make it harder for users to install a reasonable set of fonts. There
are real costs associated with overly fine-grained package splits. Have
you really weighted to pros and cons of this idea ? The use case you
cite

Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from
tiresias, without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias
fonts is a valid setup.

Doesn't really strike me as worth supporting...


Matthias

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

Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
 

I added some comments on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139

please check them

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

Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
 

Le dimanche 09 novembre 2008 Ã* 11:04 -0500, Matthias Clasen a écrit :
> On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 12:09 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>
> > â–¶ package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora
> > users
>
> Can I voice some doubt about the usefulness of this ?

Sure, the whole discussion is open.

> Going to your wiki
> page, I read that dejavu has been split into ~10 subpackages.

Actually, it has been split from 3 packages (2 full + 1 lgc) to 6 font
packages (3 full + 3 lgc) + 1 common package and 2 compat packages which
are only used for upgrades (and will be killed in F12).

The font packages still weight more than your average package. And I'd
be happy to get rid of the lgc packages, except that's pitchfork land,
so if I had to maintain them they should follow the same rules as
dejavu-full.

> If this
> happens to all font packages, it will blow up metadata and package lists
> and make it harder for users to install a reasonable set of fonts.

I don't think so, packages with a clear content are more user-friendly
than packages that mix good and bad stuff. And the item users recognize
is the font family name they get in font lists. I've seen all too many
times users ask what package provides a particular font, because it was
hidden in a big bundle.

One package per font family means we can get packagekit font
auto-install to work (the main problem when it was last discussed was
how to handle fonts with different capabilities in a single package)
instead of having @font-face install proprietary blobs on use systems.

Also it means that when we add support to a new script spins only need
to add *one* small package to their default package list instead of big
packages that weight 10s of megs.

(for example there is enough size pressure on defaults we're seriously
considering to pass on korean bold because the space is already taken by
other packages)

As written in the wiki page we've tried to let maintainers find the
"best" split and it ended up a mess, one package per font family is a
clear rule which is easy to understand by everyone, and will even result
in subpackage consolidation in a few cases.

> There
> are real costs associated with overly fine-grained package splits. Have
> you really weighted to pros and cons of this idea ? The use case you
> cite
>
> Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from
> tiresias, without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias
> fonts is a valid setup.
>
> Doesn't really strike me as worth supporting...

Another use-case is indic fonts. If we had a big monolithic lohit
package malayam users would complain. Because it is split we can have
one set of defaults taken from lohit, and another from smc, without
requiring full install of both of them.

And which font is default at any time is a policy decision, having to
rework package split each time one font gets better than another is not
a good use of resources.

Lastly, multi-font packages have all too often turned into a licensing
mess, because fonts are usually not created together and bundling fonts
often means bundling licenses. tetex is a sorry example of what happens
when you start creating font collections. And once you've decided you
want to split collections the only simple splitting rule everyone
understands without running circles in package reviews is splitting
along font family lines.

(I'm sorry if I need to insist on clear rules for new packagers. I've
just had too many painful font reviews lately)

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

Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
 

On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 17:53 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> One package per font family means we can get packagekit font
> auto-install to work (the main problem when it was last discussed was
> how to handle fonts with different capabilities in a single package)
> instead of having @font-face install proprietary blobs on use systems.

Behdad, what's the status of the auto font install thing? I've got the
DBUS interface wired up and some initial UI code in place:
http://www.packagekit.org/img/gpk-client-font.png

Anything you're waiting for me for? Anything I can be testing?

Richard.


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

Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
 

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> The complete list of proposed changes is published there
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes

> ghostscript-fonts
> Needs to be split but at the same time finding OTF replacements would
> probably be better

Please don't forget that GhostScript's URW fonts are metrically compatible
with the standard PostScript fonts and even look similar to them. Please
don't drop them without an equivalent (i.e. also metrically and visually
compatible with the standard PostScript fonts) replacement!

Kevin Kofler

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

Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
 

Le dimanche 09 novembre 2008 à 19:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > The complete list of proposed changes is published there
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes
>
> > ghostscript-fonts
> > Needs to be split but at the same time finding OTF replacements would
> > probably be better
>
> Please don't forget that GhostScript's URW fonts are metrically compatible
> with the standard PostScript fonts and even look similar to them. Please
> don't drop them without an equivalent (i.e. also metrically and visually
> compatible with the standard PostScript fonts) replacement!

Reworks of the Ghostscript fonts exist (ie TEX Gyre, but there are
probably others). They should have kept the original style and metrics
(maybe fixed hinting and kerning).

The only reason they've not been merged yet is a legal mess.

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

Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
 

Le dimanche 09 novembre 2008 Ã* 12:09 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :

> ▶▶▶ Proof of concept:
>
> Dejavu has been used to proof the concepts in rawhide (cf the wiki page)

To proof it some more I've separated the common macro, spec templates
and directory definitions in a separate package, then modified three
font packages to use it:
— dejavu: multiple font families, multiple fontconfig files,
— theokritos: single font family and fontconfig file,
– vera: multiple font families and no config file

It all works with the same macros, factors out the magic and reduces
average font package complexity.

(and hopefully the number of mistakes on has to correct in review)

What do people think of it ?

http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/

Regards,

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