Bug 1081782

I think my problem was that I did not understand the font policy correctly. Here is the new spec: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/astloch-fonts.spec and the new SRPMS: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/astloch-fonts-1.00-1.41528389c445hg.fc20.src.rpm. I also wrote the .conf file: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SOURCES/astloch-fonts.conf.

They both seem correct to me this time.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: astloch-fonts-1.00-1.41528389c445hg.fc20.src.rpm
astloch-fonts.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %_font_pkg
astloch-fonts.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %doc
astloch-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conf -> con, cone, cons
astloch-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ttf -> Flatt
astloch-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US txt -> text, ext, tit
astloch-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0: astloch-fonts-41528389c445hg.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

Now I am doing a manual review.

Regards!

You can see this for additional help.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts

Regards!

Thanks for the links. I updated the spec file so it matches one of the template. It is much easier to read now. I got rid off the rpmlint errors in the process. I also asked a question on the fonts mailing list about font config.

- SPECS: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/astloch-fonts.spec
- SRPMS: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/astloch-fonts-1.00-1.41528389c445hg.fc20.src.rpm

I modified the fontconfig file according to the template posted on the fonts mailing list.

The links are the same. The package looks fine for me.

Just a few points:

1. The FontForge sources for these fonts are available from the Google font directory so, according to our packaging policy, these fonts SHOULD be built from source.

2. The word "fracture" in the description should be "Fraktur".

3. Our fonts policy now says that fonts must include correct licensing fields in the metadata. In this case, you'll need to correct the metadata after building, using the ttname tool.

4. The fontconfig file isn't correct. You need to register both fonts with the generic name "cursive" using the basic-font-template.conf supplied with fontpackages-devel.

(In reply to Paul Flo Williams from comment #6)
>
> 3. Our fonts policy now says that fonts must include correct licensing
> fields in the metadata. In this case, you'll need to correct the metadata
> after building, using the ttname tool.

Of course, if you build from source, you have the option of patching the SFD files before building, but UTF-7 dragons lurk there, so I'd still recommend you use ttname.

(In reply to Paul Flo Williams from comment #6)
> Just a few points:
> 
> 1. The FontForge sources for these fonts are available from the Google font
> directory so, according to our packaging policy, these fonts SHOULD be built
> from source.
> 
OK, I am building them from source now. Thanks for pointing that out.
> 2. The word "fracture" in the description should be "Fraktur".
> 
Corrected.
> 3. Our fonts policy now says that fonts must include correct licensing
> fields in the metadata. In this case, you'll need to correct the metadata
> after building, using the ttname tool.
> 
Corrected. However, ttname always exits with status 1 even if the ttf files are correctly patched. I have the same issue if I just use ttname to display informations on the fonts. Hence the ugly `|| exit 0` at the end of the ttname line. Any idea on that?
> 4. The fontconfig file isn't correct. You need to register both fonts with
> the generic name "cursive" using the basic-font-template.conf supplied with
> fontpackages-devel.
Corrected. Thank for your answer.

SPECS: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/astloch-fonts.spec
SRPMS: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/astloch-fonts-1.00-2.41528389c445hg.fc20.src.rpm

Can I have new feedback on this please? I would like to end this package before continuing packaging the other fonts in order to avoid making the same mistakes twice.

Thanks.

The changes were made as they were requested in all comments.

Approved!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: astloch-fonts
Short Description: Astloch fonts
Upstream URL: http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/source/browse/ofl/astloch
Owners: jujens
Branches: f20 f21

Git done (by process-git-requests).

astloch-fonts-1.00-2.41528389c445hg.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/astloch-fonts-1.00-2.41528389c445hg.fc21

astloch-fonts-1.00-2.41528389c445hg.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/astloch-fonts-1.00-2.41528389c445hg.fc20

astloch-fonts-1.00-2.41528389c445hg.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

astloch-fonts-1.00-2.41528389c445hg.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

astloch-fonts-1.00-2.41528389c445hg.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.