Bug 468618

Summary:	over-enthusiastic subpackaging
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot>
Component:	un-core-fonts	Assignee:	Jens Petersen <petersen>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fonts-bugs, i18n-bugs, petersen, smallvil
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2009-08-31 09:26:34 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:	438944

Description Nicolas Mailhot 2008-10-26 19:28:41 UTC

While splitting font packages is generally good, separating regular and bold faces of the same font in different packages is a tad over the top.

Please keep batang and batang bold in the same package (reiterate for other un core fonts)

(at the same time, it's awesome you've managed to package a beast like the un fonts given all the problems you had to solve)

Comment 1 Nicolas Mailhot 2008-10-26 19:29:52 UTC

(and same for light when it's available like for dinaru)

Comment 2 Jens Petersen 2008-10-28 02:41:15 UTC

Do you think we should make an exception for dotum though since it will pull in another 2.5MB for all users?

4.6M  un-core-fonts-dotum-1.0.2-0.6.080608.fc10.noarch.rpm
2.5M  un-core-fonts-dotumbold-1.0.2-0.6.080608.fc10.noarch.rpm

Comment 3 Nicolas Mailhot 2008-10-28 03:45:10 UTC

I don't like exceptions much, you end up removing them later generally. And I tend to believe that anyone who's actually interested in dotum will want the bold too.

I suppose dotum is a special case because want to install korean support for everyone by default, even for people who didn't ask for it (but is it really ok to provide korean without bold when we have it available?). If we're that short of space for F10 you can make it an exception, but IMHO it will end up in the default install set in a few releases anyway.

Comment 4 Nicolas Mailhot 2008-11-09 21:22:12 UTC

BTW if the problem is that the current macros used in this package want to take a single font file as argument, then the subpackaging macro I wrote in dejavu yesterday could be used instead.

I must admit I was thinking very hard about the un font packages when I wrote them.

Comment 5 Bug Zapper 2008-11-26 04:16:17 UTC

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 10 development cycle.
Changing version to '10'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 6 Jens Petersen 2009-06-26 03:48:44 UTC

Actually it is worse that that since currently the main packages also contain the bold (and light) fonts...

Comment 7 Jens Petersen 2009-06-26 06:25:17 UTC

Should be fixed in 1.0.2-0.9.080608.