Bug 477436

[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

To help packagers manage the transition to the new guidelines, we've published the following FAQ

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_other_packages_(FAQ)

FPC approved those two additional guidelines recently, please take them into account if you need to create or update a fonts package or subpackage:

– 2009-01-14: naming
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_%282009-01-13%29

— 2009-01-06: exact splitting rules
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_%282008-12-21%29

(packagers that can drop font files and just depend on an existing font package are not impacted)

This is a reminder for all the packagers that still have bugs open about adapting to font packaging guidelines there is only one month left before Fedora 11 beta:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/11/Schedule

A week of this month will see the Fedora 11 mass rebuild, that will load the build farm:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild

As already converted packages showed it is quite possible to make mistakes during the conversion. Please make releng and QA happy and don't wait till the last minute to do your changes (avoid pre-beta panic). If possible start before the mass rebuild so we don't burn cycles on incorrect packages.

The PackageKit enhancements stated for Fedora 11 assume fonts and font-using packages are sane (basically respect packaging guidelines). It is quite possible that not-converted packages will interact with the F11 font autoinstall feature in "interesting" ways.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AutomaticFontInstallation

We don't want that

There is extensive documentation on the wiki and most of your questions have likely already been answered there. Please do read the FAQ before making more work for the support team by asking questions answered there.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29

Hello,

Please have a look.

http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/padauk-fonts-2.4-2.fc11.src.rpm
http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/padauk-fonts.spec

Regards,
Mintos

Hi Minto,

Thank you for looking at it.
You still have several leftovers from the previous templates (defines for common directories, etc). I suggest you do a diff with the latest 
/etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-simple.spec in fontpackages-devel 
and try to reduce the delta.

Fontpackages 1.20 should be queued for all releases but if it's not hit a mirror next to you yet you can pull it directly from koji
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=7288

Also, please rename your package to sil-padauk-fonts as has already be done for the other SIL fonts.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_packages

Hello,

I hope I have cleaned up the package pretty much. Please have a look..

http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-4.fc11.src.rpm
http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/sil-padauk-fonts.spec

Regards,
Mintos

This spec is mostly ok (you still have a stray define that needs to be changed to global)

The only bit which is really missing is the obsolete to provide users an upgrade path

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_packages#.28n:1.29_Many-to-one_replacement

Hello,

Please check.

http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/sil-padauk-fonts.spec
http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-5.fc11.src.rpm

Regards,
Mintos

This one is fine.

BTW you can use http://scripts.sil.org/Padauk as URL

Hello,

Changed the URL.

http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/sil-padauk-fonts.spec
http://mintojoseph.fedorapeople.org/packages/newguide/sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-6.fc11.src.rpm

Regards,
Mintos

APPROVED.

You can do the administrative bits in

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_packages#Source_package_naming_changes

now

This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 11 development cycle.
Changing version to '11'.

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

sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-6.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-6.fc12

sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-6.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-6.fc11

sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-6.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update sil-padauk-fonts'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-10522

sil-padauk-fonts-2.4-6.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.