Bug 480108

Summary:	Update libuninameslist to 20080409
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh>
Component:	libuninameslist	Assignee:	Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	rawhide	CC:	kevin, otaylor
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:	2009-01-15 23:23:10 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:

Description Roozbeh Pournader 2009-01-15 03:42:08 UTC

Apparently the new version of libuninameslist, 20080409, supports Unicode 5.1, which is quite useful for me, since the list is used in fontforge to display names for glyphs...

I can try to update the package myself. I just asked for commit access.

Comment 1 Kevin Fenzi 2009-01-15 03:50:58 UTC

Sounds good... in rawhide feel free. 

For F-10 we should discuss and do at the same time as fontforge...

Comment 2 Roozbeh Pournader 2009-01-15 04:41:40 UTC

Thanks. I was thinking of updating the versioning scheme of libuninameslist to reflect that of fontforge too: upstream is the same guy, he uses 8-digit dates for both, but we are using 0.0-8.20080409 for libuninameslist vs 20081215-2.fc11 for for fontforge. May I change the versioning scheme too?

Comment 3 Kevin Fenzi 2009-01-15 04:57:45 UTC

I would think that would work fine... 20080409-1 is newer than 0.0-8.20080409, so there shouldnt be a problem. 

the 0.0 thing seems like the package was being treated as a prerelease or postrelease package, but in fact the date is the release version. ;)

Comment 4 Roozbeh Pournader 2009-01-15 23:23:10 UTC

Update built for rawhide. For F-10, I'll wait until we figure out what to do with fontforge.

Comment 5 Kevin Fenzi 2009-01-16 05:13:04 UTC

Should we rebuild fontforge against this version as well (in rawhide), 
and/or possibly update fontforge to the newest upstream (in rawhide)?

I guess we can discuss on the fonts list and/or irc...