Bug 1648825

Summary:	Split and update smc-fonts to match upstream release
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Rajeesh <rajeeshknambiar>
Component:	smc-fonts	Assignee:	vishal vijayraghavan <vvijayra>
Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fonts-bugs, i18n-bugs, nav007, petersen, pnemade, psatpute, rajeeshknambiar
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2019-02-22 06:41:16 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Rajeesh 2018-11-12 08:34:51 UTC

Description of problem:
We haven't updated smc-fonts in 4 years in Fedora. A lot of updates and fixes were made and a new font was added by upstream in the meantime. With that, a lot of discussions on how to manage the releases of fonts also took place, because by then each font was being updated differently and was getting a different version number.

Upstream moved to Gitlab instead of Savannah and each font with its own version number is hosted in individual repository now, see https://gitlab.com/smc/fonts. Fedora can no longer depend on the existing packaging mechanism of single tarball and single makefile, as some fonts use different build tools (e.g. Manjari uses UFO+Fontmake) as well.

I've discussed with pravins and he suggests to split the fonts and open a bug for that.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
6.1

How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Nicolas Mailhot 2018-11-12 09:53:18 UTC

That would be awfully nice.

Please note however that I will push a font packaging macro rewrite sometime this month in devel.

Comment 2 Pravin Satpute 2018-11-13 11:51:06 UTC

Thanks Rajeesh for reporting bug. As we discussed, we were having same problem with lohit-fonts packages, Now each font is separate package and maintenance is easy.

Comment 3 vishal vijayraghavan 2019-02-22 06:41:16 UTC

Splitting of smc-fonts into individual font package is completed and available for use in f30+

Comment 4 Rajeesh 2019-02-22 09:09:50 UTC

Thanks Vishal!

Could you share the pagure/packages URL to the new packages repo?

Comment 5 vishal vijayraghavan 2019-02-22 09:15:30 UTC

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-anjalioldlipi-fonts
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-dyuthi-fonts
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-meera-fonts
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-rachana-fonts
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-raghumalayalamsans-fonts
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-suruma-fonts

Comment 6 vishal vijayraghavan 2019-02-22 09:23:15 UTC

(In reply to vishal vijayraghavan from comment #5)
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-anjalioldlipi-fonts
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-dyuthi-fonts
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-meera-fonts
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-rachana-fonts
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-raghumalayalamsans-fonts
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-suruma-fonts

Builds for individual smc-fonts: 
smc-raghumalayalamsans-fonts: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1180854
smc-anjalioldlipi-fonts:      https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1180851
smc-dyuthi-fonts:             https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1180850
smc-suruma-fonts:             https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1180849
smc-rachana-fonts:            https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1180845
smc-meera-fonts:              https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1180843

Comment 7 Rajeesh 2019-02-23 09:09:35 UTC

(In reply to vishal vijayraghavan from comment #5)
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-anjalioldlipi-fonts
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-dyuthi-fonts
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-meera-fonts
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-rachana-fonts
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-raghumalayalamsans-fonts
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-suruma-fonts

Just a thought.
The font packaging guidelines say we SHOULD build from source if possible [1].
Any particular reason not to follow that? (The upstream Makefile is not very well suited for Fedora, but I can engage with upstream if anything could be improved).

[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_building_from_sources

Comment 8 Nicolas Mailhot 2019-02-24 15:49:44 UTC

If you can build from sources please do so. That's the only way to make sure our font building infra is sane and we will be able to use it the day someone needs a fix in the font files and upstream is busy somewhere else. (and that also makes sure Fedora is something upstream can rely on should it need to).

DejaVu for example builds fine from source in Fedora, that's the result of a cooperation between us and the font project to fix the required Makefile parts.

Comment 9 vishal vijayraghavan 2019-02-25 11:59:48 UTC

Thank you Rajeesh and Nicolas for bringing up this topic.
Have rebuild all fonts from sources except smc-suruma-fonts because of the missing file and also have reported it in upstream[1]

[1] https://gitlab.com/smc/fonts/suruma/issues/4

Comment 10 Rajeesh 2019-02-26 08:20:52 UTC

(In reply to vishal vijayraghavan from comment #9)
> Thank you Rajeesh and Nicolas for bringing up this topic.
> Have rebuild all fonts from sources except smc-suruma-fonts because of the
> missing file and also have reported it in upstream[1]
> 
> [1] https://gitlab.com/smc/fonts/suruma/issues/4

I've just fixed the issue with Suruma and tagged a new release.