Bug 475593

FedoraHosted request
http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1040

Infra did its bit, so here is a new version with the fedorahosted references fixed
http://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/fontpackages.spec
http://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/fontpackages-1.10-2.fc11.src.rpm

Thanks for this package. The font packaging guidelines always seemed like a maze to me. I hope this will make things a lot easier. I have a few comments and questions:

* rpmlint says:
   fontpackages-devel.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rpm-fonts-devel
   fontpackages-filesystem.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rpm-fonts-filesystem
Is there a particular reason why you don't provide the obsoletes? I also can't seem to find these packages in our db. Do we really need these obsoletes?

   fontpackages-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation
This can be ignored.

* The license tag should be: LGPLv3+

* We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)

* Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
The directories:
   /usr/share/fonts.
   /etc/fonts/conf.d
are already owned by filesystem and fontconfig. Why share the ownership?

- Suggestion: Since you are the upstream, you can provide a Makefile in the source so that you don't have to do those tricks in the SPEC file.

(In reply to comment #3)
> Thanks for this package. The font packaging guidelines always seemed like a
> maze to me. I hope this will make things a lot easier. I have a few comments
> and questions:
> 
> * rpmlint says:
>    fontpackages-devel.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rpm-fonts-devel
>    fontpackages-filesystem.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided
> rpm-fonts-filesystem
> Is there a particular reason why you don't provide the obsoletes?

rpm-fonts does not exist in the repo and should not exist. These obsoletes are only there for the people who have played with early versions of this package. I've always intended to remove them shortly, and did so now.

> * The license tag should be: LGPLv3+
> 
> * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)

Those are the correct permission and there is no drawback, and lots of advantages, in not specifying them.

> * Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
> The directories:
>    /usr/share/fonts.
>    /etc/fonts/conf.d
> are already owned by filesystem and fontconfig. Why share the ownership?

As posted on the guideline change plan they will be removed from those other packages after this one is available to keep font policy in a single place.

> - Suggestion: Since you are the upstream, you can provide a Makefile in the
> source so that you don't have to do those tricks in the SPEC file.

You'll find out that to keep directory info in a single place, the macro file, you'd need to play rpm tricks in this Makefile, and at this point it's stupid to do it out of rpm spec space

New packages
http://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/fontpackages.spec
http://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/fontpackages-1.11-1.fc11.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > * Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
> > The directories:
> >    /usr/share/fonts.
> >    /etc/fonts/conf.d
> > are already owned by filesystem and fontconfig. Why share the ownership?
> 
> As posted on the guideline change plan they will be removed from those other
> packages after this one is available to keep font policy in a single place.
> 
Sorry, I missed that part.

> > - Suggestion: Since you are the upstream, you can provide a Makefile in the
> > source so that you don't have to do those tricks in the SPEC file.
> 
> You'll find out that to keep directory info in a single place, the macro file,
> you'd need to play rpm tricks in this Makefile, and at this point it's stupid
> to do it out of rpm spec space
> 
It was just my suggestion and I respect your decision. I'll approve the package as soon as I see the official FPC announcement.

No need to wait more. I got confirmation from an FPC member.

-----------------------------------------------
This package (fontpackages) is approved by oget
-----------------------------------------------

Other than this, is there any draft yet for the new guidelines?

(In reply to comment #6)

> -----------------------------------------------
> This package (fontpackages) is approved by oget
> -----------------------------------------------

Thank you

> Other than this, is there any draft yet for the new guidelines?

The new templates are in this rpm (FPC approved). I'll turn them in nice wiki pages and hunt all traces of current guidelines once FESCO has approved it. I don't really see the point of doing it before. This is quite a lot of wiki work and if FESCO asks for changes in the templates this work will have to be done twice.

Better to keep the proposal in one place for now IMHO.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: fontpackages
Short Description: Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages
Owners: nim
Branches: F10, F9, devel
InitialCC: fonts-sig

Does this really need to go into F9/F10? Thats going to be a lot of churn to change all the fonts packages in stable reases. 

Or do you see new fonts using them going into those releases?

This is for new fonts. A lot of packagers will only work on new packages if they can import in stable release without waiting F11 time.

I will actively discourage anyone who suggests converting existing F9 and  F10 packages to the new templates.

CVS Done

fontpackages-1.11-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fontpackages-1.11-1.fc9

fontpackages-1.11-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fontpackages-1.11-1.fc10

fontpackages-1.11-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

fontpackages-1.11-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Why is %_fontconfig_templatedir changed from %{_sysconfdir}/fonts/conf.avail to %{_datadir}/fontconfig/conf.avail ?

Because those are not user-modifiable config file but static system templates (ie, data).

So according to the FHS they should be somewhere else.

See the first FPC meeting minutes

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: fontpackages
New Branches: EL-6
Owners: tremble    

nim listed as welcoming epel maintainers.

To Mark,
   and what makes you to think this is not already in EL-6?

To Parag:

Sorry, failed to find the -devel package in the copy of EL-6 I had, having forgotten about the extra repositories.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: fontpackages
New Branches: EL-5
Owners: salimma

On the other hand, it's not in EL-5 yet (at least, Koji does not know about it)

Be very careful when you backport fontpackages to an older release that the spec templates must match the capabilities of rpm in this release

CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: fontpackages
New Branches: EL-5
Owners: pnemade

I am requesting this based on conversation that it is fine to un-retire this in el5

<paragan> tyll_, do you know what can be the reason to retire fontpackages in el5? All I see the dead.package which says removal due to rpmlint but rpmlint is not removed from el5
<tyll_> paragan: I added rpmlint again because it was required to fix the EPEL5 buildroot
<tyll_> paragan: but this was after all depending packages were retired
<paragan> tyll, can I unretire fontpackages in el5 then?
<tyll> paragan: yes

Complete.