Bug 2372646
| Summary: | ghostscript-tools-fonts implies a font package | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Akira TAGOH <tagoh> |
| Component: | ghostscript | Assignee: | Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | mjg, mosvald, zdohnal |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | ghostscript-10.05.1-4.fc43 ghostscript-10.05.1-4.fc42 ghostscript-10.03.1-8.fc41 | Doc Type: | --- |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2025-06-24 09:05:03 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: | |||
|
Description
Akira TAGOH
2025-06-13 10:49:39 UTC
Hi Akira, the sequence was intentional - gs contains several types of tools, while this specific package contains tools for fonts. So while user does not get fonts with this package, but they get tools which they can use with fonts, so they are font related. IMHO installing packages via asterisk is not a safe way how to install set of packages - is there any other reason why this name is problematic? Basically IMO the name implies "tools for fonts", not "fonts package". That obviously described in our packaging guidelines at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#:~:text=Other%20upstream%20files,%2Dfonts%20naming: Other upstream files Support for other font systems, for specific applications, non-OpenType font formats, bulky documentation, TEX, CSS, or JSON files… MUST be split in separate non-font packages, that SHOULD install outside /usr/share/fonts, and MUST NOT use <something>-fonts naming. (In reply to Akira TAGOH from comment #3) > That obviously described in our packaging guidelines at > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#:~: > text=Other%20upstream%20files,%2Dfonts%20naming: > > Other upstream files > Support for other font systems, for specific applications, non-OpenType font > formats, bulky documentation, TEX, CSS, or JSON files… MUST be split in > separate non-font packages, that SHOULD install outside /usr/share/fonts, > and MUST NOT use <something>-fonts naming. That is the first valid argument and SHOULD have been the first one. Now, how can we rename the subpackages to be conformant as well as clear: ghostscript-tools-fonts.noarch ghostscript-tools-printing.noarch ghostscript-tools-dvipdf.noarch I'd suggest either ghostscript-tools-fonttools or ghostscript-tools-psfont, because reordering the stems is not helpful. Either naming works for me. Hi Michael! IMO we don't need to rename those other two, right? I don't see an issue with them. I'll create a PR for the fonts though - I would go for -fonttools. Zdenek I have created the PR - https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghostscript/pull-request/44 - please leave a feedback there (I have gone with -fontutils in the end, to do not repeat 'tools'). Looks good to me. FEDORA-2025-d44811a313 (ghostscript-10.05.1-4.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d44811a313 FEDORA-2025-d44811a313 (ghostscript-10.05.1-4.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2025-b46e3a83ee (ghostscript-10.05.1-4.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b46e3a83ee FEDORA-2025-dcf34d8c19 (ghostscript-10.03.1-8.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-dcf34d8c19 FEDORA-2025-dcf34d8c19 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-dcf34d8c19` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-dcf34d8c19 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2025-b46e3a83ee has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-b46e3a83ee` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b46e3a83ee See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2025-b46e3a83ee (ghostscript-10.05.1-4.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2025-dcf34d8c19 (ghostscript-10.03.1-8.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |