Bug 477435

[Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.]

This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files:

repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq

Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now.

Otherwise, you should know that:

— Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage):
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages

— our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package:
  – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18)
  – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package
  – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template
  – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts

Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please).

If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories.

It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family

The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe.

The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples:
❄ andika-fonts
❄ apanov-heuristica-fonts
❄ bitstream-vera-fonts
❄ charis-fonts
❄ dejavu-fonts
❄ ecolier-court-fonts
❄ edrip-fonts
❄ gfs-ambrosia-fonts
❄ gfs-artemisia-fonts
❄ gfs-baskerville-fonts
❄ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts
❄ gfs-bodoni-fonts
❄ gfs-complutum-fonts
❄ gfs-didot-classic-fonts
❄ gfs-didot-fonts
❄ gfs-eustace-fonts
❄ gfs-fleischman-fonts
❄ gfs-garaldus-fonts
❄ gfs-gazis-fonts
❄ gfs-jackson-fonts
❄ gfs-neohellenic-fonts
❄ gfs-nicefore-fonts
❄ gfs-olga-fonts
❄ gfs-porson-fonts
❄ gfs-solomos-fonts
❄ gfs-theokritos-fonts
❄ stix-fonts
❄ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts

If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on:
fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com

I imagine this is due to the inclusion of /usr/lib/openoffice.org/basis3.0/share/fonts/truetype/opens___.ttf which is the very openoffice.org-specific opensymbol font which provides some dingbat symbols which are used with a "magic" conversion table to provide conversions for wingdings for msoffice import and for conversion of the even more obscure "starbats" font from old versions of StarOffice documents. Its definitely not a general-purpose font, and I'm not sure it has value outside OpenOffice.org, its more a "means-to-an-end" to support a conversion mechanism for wingdings and starbats.

I'm quite sure it has value for all our other office apps which need to deal with OO.o documents that reference this font

(of course I hope SUN did use unicode encoding, but even if they didn't, as long as there are documents that reference this, it's not a good idea to keep it private)

Lets give this a go, rough testing shows that our fontconfig support doesn't do anything like filter it out (under any assumption that it couldn't possibly exist outside of the current location) so whack it into the normal font area.

FPC requested last-minute font package naming changes and which will cause a build failure your side as soon as you rebuild. Please adapt your font package naming

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ)#fpc_renaming

What's the bottom line on what needs to be done ? I'm unable to parse the tree of links.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ)#fpc_renaming_fix

needs another attempt, will be >= 3.0.1-15.3

Just a little nitpicking to keep the unowned-directory people happy; you should replace:
%_font_pkg -n %{fontname} opens___.ttf

with:
%_font_pkg -n %{fontname} opens___.ttf

%dir %{_fontdir}

(directory ownership of the ttf dir is not automatic because some people do not like multiply-owned directories)

we can do that I guess, no skin off my nose

*** Bug 483313 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***