Bug 477440

[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

Files in question:

$ rpm -qa php-ZendFramework\*|xargs -n1 rpm -ql|grep -E '\.(ttf|otf|pfb|pfa)$'
/usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/Vera.ttf
/usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraBI.ttf
/usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraBd.ttf
/usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraIt.ttf
/usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraMoBI.ttf
/usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraMoBd.ttf
/usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraMoIt.ttf
/usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraMono.ttf
/usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraSe.ttf
/usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts/VeraSeBd.ttf

(from php-ZendFramework-tests)

These font files are part of Zend Framework's tests package and used to determine whether the PDF extension works correctly.

They are identical to the ones in Fedora's bitstream-vera-fonts package, thus there are no licensing issues:

/usr/share/fonts/bitstream-vera $ sha1sum *.ttf > /tmp/sha
/usr/share/php/Zend/tests/Zend/Pdf/_fonts $ sha1sum -c /tmp/sha
VeraBd.ttf: OK
VeraBI.ttf: OK
VeraIt.ttf: OK
VeraMoBd.ttf: OK
VeraMoBI.ttf: OK
VeraMoIt.ttf: OK
VeraMono.ttf: OK
VeraSeBd.ttf: OK
VeraSe.ttf: OK
Vera.ttf: OK


If you still consider this a bug, we can either patch the source code (heavily discouraged) or symlink the files from bitstream-vera-fonts and create a dependency on the package; in either case, please reopen this bug report.

Please symlink from the Vera (or better) DejaVu packages

php-ZendFramework-1.7.2-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php-ZendFramework-1.7.2-1.fc10

Updates for F-9 and F-10 submitted for testing.
Package cannot be built for rawhide right now because of missing F-11 bitstream-vera-fonts, so it seems.. clueless.

The font packages in rawhide have been reorganised

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/2008-December/msg00025.html

The name of the fonts in the unit test is hardcoded.. I'm trying hard to avoid patching the source file; it seems there are no checks on whether the expected list of files really refers to the Vera family, I could make the symlinks point to the DejaVu family I guess.

It's worth a try.
You could also remind upstream to add fontconfig support so it can auto-discover system fonts like other apps

php-ZendFramework-1.7.2-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 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 php-ZendFramework'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-0094

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)

php-ZendFramework-1.7.2-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.