Bug 225617

Random notes:
* rpmlint output:
W: bitmap-fonts invalid-license distributable
W: bitmap-fonts no-url-tag
W: bitmap-fonts-cjk invalid-license distributable
W: bitmap-fonts-cjk no-url-tag
W: bitmap-fonts-cjk no-documentation

* It seems that the Lucida fonts are not free software. See the LU_LEGALNOTICE
in the package.

* As this is actually three different set of fonts, the version (0.3) is quite
arbitrary. Also, at least ucs-fonts has released a newer version in 2006, while
the version in bitmap-fonts is from 2003.

* Release is complicated (5.1.1) for no real reason. Should be changed to
integer value (6?).

* BuildRoot should be changed to
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

* In the "cjk" subpackage summary, CJK should be spelled with capital letters.

* "Prereq" should be replaced by "Requires" (see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#tags)

Change fedora-review to negative and assign to owner for fixing them.

bitmap-fonts-0.3-5.1.2.fc7 has the following things fixed...

(In reply to comment #1)
> Random notes:
> * rpmlint output:
> W: bitmap-fonts invalid-license distributable
> W: bitmap-fonts no-url-tag
> W: bitmap-fonts-cjk invalid-license distributable
> W: bitmap-fonts-cjk no-url-tag
> W: bitmap-fonts-cjk no-documentation
> 
> * It seems that the Lucida fonts are not free software. See the LU_LEGALNOTICE
> in the package.
> 
> * As this is actually three different set of fonts, the version (0.3) is quite
> arbitrary. Also, at least ucs-fonts has released a newer version in 2006, while
> the version in bitmap-fonts is from 2003.
> 
> * Release is complicated (5.1.1) for no real reason. Should be changed to
> integer value (6?).

FIXXED

> * BuildRoot should be changed to
> %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

FIXED

> * In the "cjk" subpackage summary, CJK should be spelled with capital letters.

FIXED

> * "Prereq" should be replaced by "Requires" (see
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#tags)

FIXED

Others - added the dist tag.

Hi Roozbeh,

How do we handle the LU_LEGALNOTICE issue?
And how do we solve the no-url-tag & no-documentation issues?

Thanks,
Mayank

User majain's account has been closed

looks like a stalled review.
Taking ownership of this review and CC'ing to rbhalera who is new maintainer for
this package.

spot and nim-nim,
  Can you please help me to know legality of this package and its license name?
Are Lucida fonts acceptable?

(In reply to comment #7)
> spot and nim-nim,
>   Can you please help me to know legality of this package and its license name?
> Are Lucida fonts acceptable?

For spot (FE-LEGAL)

Lucida fonts are acceptable. If we modify the fonts in any way, we'll need to
stop using the Lucida trademarks (similar to Bitstream Vera).

The fixfonts appear to have come from KDE3's "konsole" application, and are
licensed as GPLv2 (http://websvn.kde.org/tags/KDE/3.5.9/kdebase/konsole/).

Use License: GPLv2 and Lucida

Lifting FE-Legal.

This package is currently a bundle of fonts collected from different sources with different licenses. Our font packaging guidelines would call for some splitting here (terminus-fonts is an example of mono-bitmap-font package)

I am not sure about the importance of this package
though it has been in the distro for a long time.

Most of the fonts seem to be duplicated in xorg-x11-fonts.
At least the ucs-fonts and lucidatypewriter are AFAICT.

$ cd bitmap-fonts/devel/bitmap-fonts-0.3
$ find -name "*.bdf" | wc -l
33
$ for i in *.bdf; do find xorg-x11-fonts/devel/xorg-x11-fonts-7.2/font-misc-misc-1.0.0 -name $i ; done | wc -l
44

which only seems to really leave fangsongti.

pasting review comment from bug 481068, pasting only important one
---------------------------------------------------

Comment #8 From  Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mailhot)  2009-09-21 17:42:02 EDT   (-) [reply] -------      Private

Well fc-scan shows that most of the bdf files declare themselves as "Fixed",
two of them think they are "Fangsong ti" and the others are not parsable by
fc-scan.

So you need at minimum a

1. a foo-fixed-fonts subpackage, 
2. a foo-fangsong-ti-fonts subpackage, 
3. and get Behdad to look at the other files and tell you if it's a bug his
side or if the files need some form of fixing. Fontconfig won't be able to use
them if it can't read the font name inside. The readme says they are Lucida but
fontconfig does not read readmes. 

Also
- it would be probably cleaner to package the ucs fonts in a ucs-fixed-fonts
package instead of hiding their origin in a collection package
- the licensing of Fangsong ti needs to be extracted from the fonts in a .txt
people can actually read.  


Comment #13 From  Pravin Satpute (psatpute)  2009-09-29 05:29:03 EDT   (-) [reply] -------      Private

sorry for bit late update 

fc-scan works fine on all *.pcf files

i have done suggested changes updated spec and srpm are as follows

http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts/bitmap-fonts.spec
http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts/bitmap-fonts-0.3-10.fc11.src.rpm

also created a new package request for ucs-fixed-fonts

bug 526204

I'll look at it this evening. Please make sure the font name appears in the package name (ucs-fixed-fonts, bitmap-fangsong-ti-fonts, etc)

yep, font name appearing
just instead of bitmap-fangsong-ti-fonts it is bitmap-fangsongti-fonts

also as commented by Jens in comment #11 
IMO we should plan from that direction also, otherwise it looks bad two Packages providing same Set of Fonts

I need to look at it some more (got distracted by other bug requests, and this is a complex package), however here are some remarks

1. rpm will evaluate your %global even with # (why did you want to comment it out?)

2. common_desc should be a global too

3. your -fixed subpackage  contains font files that declare themselves as "Console". These should go in a  "console" subpackage

4. not too sure if it'd be better to move console8x8 in its own subpackage or just rename or remap it (cf remapping template)

5. You can drop the duplicated 
Group: Applications/System
lines, the main one will be inherited in modern rpm

6. why do you add a Requires(pre): fontconfig ? We do not require fontconfig in font packages. Do you have a special need?

7. what do you need xorg-x11-font-utils as BR for ?

8. I think you can specify a different LICENSE field per subpackage, can you check with spot how he'd prefer the licensing reported ? (mixed licensing packages are a PITA) I feel if it'd be better if each subpackage was tagged with just the necessary license info (and included the corresponding license files)

9. fontconfig will happily use pcf.gz files, please compress your pcf files (if you're feeling ambitious ask behdad if he intends to support pcf.xz soon)

That's all for this first partial review, will look more in depth tomorrow

(In reply to comment #16) 
> 3. your -fixed subpackage  contains font files that declare themselves as
> "Console". These should go in a  "console" subpackage

as it has only console fonts in it dropping this subpackage and will have bitmap-console-fonts subpackage

> 
> 6. why do you add a Requires(pre): fontconfig ? We do not require fontconfig in
> font packages. Do you have a special need?
> 
> 7. what do you need xorg-x11-font-utils as BR for ?
> 
> 8. I think you can specify a different LICENSE field per subpackage, can you
> check with spot how he'd prefer the licensing reported ? (mixed licensing
> packages are a PITA) I feel if it'd be better if each subpackage was tagged
> with just the necessary license info (and included the corresponding license
> files)
> 

can you guide me little bit about what is exact LICENSES of fangsongati, just test is give but not mention which GPL version etc.

> 9. fontconfig will happily use pcf.gz files, please compress your pcf files (if
> you're feeling ambitious ask behdad if he intends to support pcf.xz soon)
> 
> That's all for this first partial review, will look more in depth tomorrow  

ok, so fontdir will contain pcf.gz file, looks ok

thanks for first review
as we are targeting this for f13 we have some time now :)

updated SPEC : http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts.spec
updated SRPM : http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts-0.3-11.fc11.src.rpm

different license for each subpackage is done in smc-fonts, but i am not sure about license of these fonts, please guide if anything

Licensing
==========

* 10x20.bdf, 4x6.bdf, 5x7.bdf, 5x8.bdf, 6x10.bdf, 6x12.bdf, 6x13B.bdf, 6x13.bdf, 6x9.bdf, 7x14B.bdf, 7x14.bdf, 9x15B.bdf, 9x15.bdf, 9x18B.bdf, 9x18.bdf : Public Domain
* fangsongti16.bdf, fangsongti24.bdf : MIT
* lutBS*.bdf : Lucida

(In reply to comment #19)
> Licensing
> ==========
> 
> * 10x20.bdf, 4x6.bdf, 5x7.bdf, 5x8.bdf, 6x10.bdf, 6x12.bdf, 6x13B.bdf,
> 6x13.bdf, 6x9.bdf, 7x14B.bdf, 7x14.bdf, 9x15B.bdf, 9x15.bdf, 9x18B.bdf,
> 9x18.bdf : Public Domain
> * fangsongti16.bdf, fangsongti24.bdf : MIT
> * lutBS*.bdf : Lucida  

and... lutRS*.bdf : Lucida

thanks for clarification

bitmap fonts also has Console fonts from fixfont tarball
README just says "fonts from kdebase/konsole/fonts from kde 3.5"

what will be the License of these fonts?

just saw comment #9 , license for Console is given there

update files are as follows

http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts.spec

http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts-0.3-12.fc11.src.rpm

1. needs xorg-x11-font-utils as BR

2. You have some stray "fixed" font in bitmap-console-fonts

3. Some of the files in bitmap-console-fonts declare their name as "console8x8.pcf" which is almost certainly a bug

4. The Lucida Typewriter fonts in bitmap-fonts should be pushed in a
bitmap-lucida-typewriter-fonts subpackage

5. It would be nice if each subpackage included its own fontconfig file

6. you can probably kill the common file and put each license %doc in the corresponding subpackage (just put the %doc line after the corresponding %_font_pkg call). You just need to have each subpackage require fontpackages-filesystem direcly

(In reply to comment #23)
> 
> 2. You have some stray "fixed" font in bitmap-console-fonts
yep console9x15.pcf has written fontname FixedMedium
in that case i think we will require Fixed subpackage, with this file included

> 3. Some of the files in bitmap-console-fonts declare their name as
> "console8x8.pcf" which is almost certainly a bug
you are talking about fontname, or file name
i did not found this in fontname, please provide bit more info. 

> 
> 4. The Lucida Typewriter fonts in bitmap-fonts should be pushed in a
> bitmap-lucida-typewriter-fonts subpackage
in that case, bitmap-fonts rpm will be empty?

> 
> 6. you can probably kill the common file and put each license %doc in the
> corresponding subpackage (just put the %doc line after the corresponding
> %_font_pkg call). You just need to have each subpackage require
> fontpackages-filesystem direcly  

so here we suppose to remove common package, also README will not require
and put files for each subpackage in %doc, but we dont have any for console
what to do for it?

(In reply to comment #24)
> (In reply to comment #23)

> > 3. Some of the files in bitmap-console-fonts declare their name as
> > "console8x8.pcf" which is almost certainly a bug
> you are talking about fontname, or file name

I'm talking about fontname as used by fontconfig (fc-query with the pkgkit format as used to generate rpm font metadata)

> > 4. The Lucida Typewriter fonts in bitmap-fonts should be pushed in a
> > bitmap-lucida-typewriter-fonts subpackage
> in that case, bitmap-fonts rpm will be empty?

It is perfectly possible to have a srpm that only generates subpackages with different names. rpm will only generate a bitmap-fonts rpm from the bitmap-fonts srpm if you put some files in it

> > 6. you can probably kill the common file and put each license %doc in the
> > corresponding subpackage (just put the %doc line after the corresponding
> > %_font_pkg call). You just need to have each subpackage require
> > fontpackages-filesystem direcly  
> 
> so here we suppose to remove common package, also README will not require
> and put files for each subpackage in %doc, but we dont have any for console
> what to do for it?  

If you don't have any doc for console, I guess it will be a doc-less subpackage :)

The main use of -common if when you have bulky shared documentation (very often, big pdf files in the font world)

updates spec and srpm

http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts.spec

http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts-0.3-13.fc11.src.rpm

yeah, fc-scan is giving wrong o/p for console8*8 font family name, looks some problem.
we dont a source file for console8*8

(In reply to comment #26)

> yeah, fc-scan is giving wrong o/p for console8*8 font family name, looks some
> problem. we dont a source file for console8*8

Well, your choices for that file are :
1. drop it, wait for complains, ask whoever complains to fix the file
2. write a fontforge (or other) script to fix the file yourself at build time
3. enhance fontconfig to read the real font name (assuming it is present at all in the font file)
4. remap the font name in a fontconfig rule (see the remapping-font-template). But this is still a workaround, not a complete solution, and you'll get nagged every time the font audit scripts run

Continuing to deploy a file that does not work in fontconfig is not acceptable, that sends the wrong message to third-parties.

Please lift the NEEDINFO when you're ready to pass to the next stage

i will resolve the above problem, will try to resolve it else will drop it.
is anything to do more from my side?

I didn't find anything else so far. Of course I add new tests regularly when a problem reports makes me realise there is something else that needs to be checked in existing packages.

updated srpm and spec

http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts-0.3-14.fc12.src.rpm
http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts.spec

removed console8x8.pcf for now will try to solve problem in free time

should i proceed with devel build?

You can build in rawhide however please do not close this, I need to find time to review the result properly and approve the merge review (unfortunately, it seems I'm a bit under water those past days)

Ok, looking at this srpm, most of the warnings and errors are gone. Good!

However:

1. (not blocking) fontlint does not like any of the resulting font files, they all need fixing but I guess it's not worse than before

2. (not blocking) the lucida typewriter files declare broken style naming that really needs fixing or apps won't be happy

3. (not blocking) all the files have almost-complete (but not complete) coverage of one or more unicode blocks (probably reflects unicode changes since they were last updated)

4. (blocking) License: Lucida is probably wrong for the base package, it should be GPLv2 and MIT

5. (not blocking) Requires: fontpackages-filesystem is not needed for the base package

6. (blocking) since the bitmap-fonts package does not exist anymore, it needs to be garbage-collected. Please add an
Obsoletes: bitmap-fonts < 0.3-14
to the bitmap-fixed-fonts subpackage (let's not be fancy, it's not worth it)

It seems I was a little optimistic before, this package needs some tweaking yet. But it has progressed a lot

Created attachment 374438 [details]
repo-font-audit test results for this package

sorry, i missed this for long time
better to fix this before f13



fixed blocking things
fixed macro in changelog
added empty build section

SRPM: http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts-0.3-15.fc12.src.rpm
SPEC : http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts.spec

how can we fix
rpmlint warning
bitmap-fonts.src: W: no-url-tag
bitmap-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source1: fixfont-3.5.tar.bz2
bitmap-fonts.src: W: invalid-url Source0: bitmap-fonts-0.3.tar.bz2

do we have any upstream link for this
http://websvn.kde.org/tags/KDE/3.5.9/kdebase/konsole/

else, may be we can add some notes in spec file

nicholas please guide

bitmap-fonts-0.3-15.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bitmap-fonts-0.3-15.fc13

what is the status of this bug now? Should it has still fedora-review?

all blocking things are fixed
Nicholas can you check this once? may be we can close this now :)

Everything blocking is fixed indeed. Thanks for the awesome work cleaning up this mess!

If you still have some cycles, I guess the Lucida naming is the worst remaining problem. But it's a font bug, not a packaging problem.