|Summary:||[fbida] Adapt to font package renamings|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot>|
|Component:||fbida||Assignee:||Adrian Reber <adrian>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||adrian, fonts-bugs, mcepl|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2009-02-26 14:18:20 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Nicolas Mailhot 2009-01-17 12:41:42 UTC
Notification of font package renamings
Comment 1 Nicolas Mailhot 2009-01-17 13:00:56 UTC
FPC unexpectedly refused to ratify a proposal that put into writing our de-facto font package naming rules for the past years, and requested naming changes. As a result many font packages have been or will be renamed soon (including recently created packages) We have detected your package depends on such a font package. Please change your dependencies accordingly. See also — http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ)#fpc_renaming — http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_(2009-01-13) — http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_(FAQ)#What_if_my_package_bundles_Bitstream_Vera.2C_Arev.2C_DejaVu_LGC_or_another_Bitstream_Vera_font_derivative.3F To ease the transition and avoid breaking F11 Alpha DejaVu has already been renamed but still declares its old names for full via rpm Provides. Those provides will be removed for Fedora 11 beta, to ensure no remaining legacy deps remains in the distribution. In the meanwhile packages depending on DejaVu full won't break and can be adapted at your leasure.
Comment 2 Nicolas Mailhot 2009-01-19 10:24:38 UTC
[Natural language informal translation] In this issue you're just warned font packages you depend on have been/will be renamed shortly, so your package dependencies will break. There is not much to do except changing your deps once that happens (dejavu has been renamed, liberation has in koji but has not hit rawhide yet, smc had been too, and you may depend on others yet) [Just to be 100% clear I didn't ask for this last renaming run, FPC demanded naming changes for "consistency" against my advice, I'm only the good little soldier who gets to implement their decision and be yelled at, so if you're not happy complain at them not me.]
Comment 3 Matěj Cepl 2009-02-17 20:35:09 UTC
While at it -- couldn't you reconsider dependency solely on bitstream-vera fonts? Why would deja fonts (default in Fedora and based on bistream-vera) are not enough?
Comment 4 Adrian Reber 2009-02-17 20:47:02 UTC
(In reply to comment #3) > While at it -- couldn't you reconsider dependency solely on bitstream-vera > fonts? Why would deja fonts (default in Fedora and based on bistream-vera) are > not enough? I am lost what I have to do with the font dependencies. The wiki has too much information and I have no clue. It just needs some font and I do not care which one. So if you know what needs to be changed in the spec file... You are welcome to do the necessary changes.
Comment 5 Matěj Cepl 2009-02-17 21:54:03 UTC
[matej@viklef coreutils]$ rpm -qR fbida |grep fonts bitstream-vera-fonts [matej@viklef coreutils]$ I am just hijacking this bug -- it has absolutely nothing to do with this bug as such. I am just complaining that fbida (uselessly, IMHO) brings to my computer bitstream-vera-fonts, which are identical to deja fonts except only for ISO 8859-1 (deja fonts work well for all languages of the world). I will take a look at the spec
Comment 6 Matěj Cepl 2009-02-17 22:59:50 UTC
Actually my issue seems to be fixed in Rawhide (not in F10, why?) Concerning the naming of the fonts -- what font exactly you need? From looking at the package itself, I don't see any hard requirements. So then dejavu-sans-mono-fonts (I think same FAQ says that it should be Monospace) should fit the bill perfectly, right?
Comment 7 Nicolas Mailhot 2009-02-18 19:33:16 UTC
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
Comment 8 Matěj Cepl 2009-02-26 00:06:26 UTC
Testing package is on http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/fbida-2.07-5.fc11.src.rpm but apparently koji is broken, right now.
Comment 9 Matěj Cepl 2009-02-26 14:18:20 UTC