Bug 174240
| Summary: | Review Request: artwiz-aleczapka-fonts | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert> | ||||
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Dawid Gajownik <gajownik> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | gajownik | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| URL: | http://artwizaleczapka.sourceforge.net/ | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2005-12-31 15:05:06 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Bug Depends On: | |||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 163779, 174219 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Andreas Bierfert
2005-11-26 11:13:01 UTC
Hi!
Do you need to generate fonts from *.bdf files? Maybe it would be better to use
artwiz-aleczapka-{de,en,se}-1.3.tar.bz2 tarballs?
Shouldn't `fc-cache' be run in %post{,un} section like in dejavu-fonts?
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/*checkout*/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel/dejavu-fonts.spec?root=extras
What do you think about changing package name to artwiz-aleczapka-fonts to keep
the name consistent with other fonts RPMs from Extras?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165900#c6
Hm, I think you we want the source files but since I do not know anything about
fonts ^^ I might be wrong.
If fc-cache should be run or not is a good question... now it is run for each
subdir so in a pretty much closed env. I don't know weather it should also be
run from %{_datadir}/fonts to allow for integration... could someone elaborate
on how this works and point out diffs between FC{3,4,5}?
-font would be fine by me so...
Ok here you go: added fc-cache to post and require it (so we don't need the if's like in dejavu) and changed the name... Before it pops up: The ghost stuff is not needed because I build them in a different way so that the files get included automatically: http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/artwiz-aleczapka-fonts-1.3-2.src.rpm http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/artwiz-aleczapka-fonts.spec Ping? (In reply to comment #4) > Ping? Uhm, sorry that it took me so long. I was ill a bit and after that I had a lot of duties. Sleeping 4-6 hours per day I was trying to catch up on my work. I thought that someone more knowledgeable could make a review in the meantime. (In reply to comment #2) > Hm, I think you we want the source files It depends. Some *-fonts packages use pregenerated fonts. Of course, it's nothing wrong in providing source files in src.rpm ;-] > I don't know weather it should also be run from %{_datadir}/fonts to allow for > integration... Without it fonts won't be visible in the system. In your fluxbox package you were adding these directories by modifying /etc/fonts/local.conf. Here you only need to run fc-cache in that dir because %{_datadir}/fonts is already in /etc/fonts/local.conf. > and point out diffs between FC{3,4,5}? In FC5 there is additional fonts.cache-2 file. (In reply to comment #3) > Ok here you go: added fc-cache to post and require it (so we don't need the if's > like in dejavu) That's wrong. Please take a look at these links: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165900#c1 http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-May/msg00887.html Here's the rest of review: - do not run fc-cache in %build section. It's a Bad Thing⢠â https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5176#c1 (Mike A. Harris is a maintainier of X.Org X11 in Fedora/RedHat) - do not include source files (*.bdf) in the final package - please preserve timestamps â http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Timestamps (I changed "mv" command to "install -p" I prepared a small patch. I have cleaned up a bit %prep section and installed fonts into %{_datadir}/fonts/artwiz-aleczapka directory (not artwiz-aleczapka-fonts). I'm also not shure whether â%{version}â part is necessary in %{buildroot}%{fontdir}/artwiz-aleczapka-{de,en,se}-%{version}. Oh, I also did not have time to struggle with documentation files. It needs some more work... BTW Merry Christmas :-) Created attachment 122576 [details]
patch to spec file.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year :) Sorry xmas was a little bit long this year and kept me from working my bugzilla tickets... here is a version with you patch applied and with the documentation included... http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/artwiz-aleczapka-fonts-1.3-2.src.rpm http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/artwiz-aleczapka-fonts.spec > Merry Christmas and Happy New Year :) Same to you :-) > Sorry xmas was a little bit long this year I wish it was a bit longer ;) > here is a version with you patch applied and with the documentation > included... Can you check the server? I cannot connect to it: "The connection was refused when attempting to contact fedora.lowlatency.de." Hm apache crashed ... damn debian ;) Should work now... You gave link to the old srpm. The correct one is http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/artwiz-aleczapka-fonts-1.3-3.src.rpm ;) - there is one rpmlint warning: [rpm-build@X ~]$ cd rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/ [rpm-build@X noarch]$ rpmlint artwiz-aleczapka-fonts-1.3-3.noarch.rpm W: artwiz-aleczapka-fonts no-version-in-last-changelog [rpm-build@X noarch]$ but it's not true ;-) - sources matches upstream - license: GPL APPROVED Thanks for the review :) imported and build for devel. Normalize summary field for easy parsing |