Bug 481068
| Summary: | bitmap-fonts needs updating to revised packaging guidelines | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jens Petersen <petersen> |
| Component: | bitmap-fonts | Assignee: | Pravin Satpute <psatpute> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fonts-bugs, i18n-bugs, mcepl, mcepl, nicolas.mailhot, psatpute, smohan |
| 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: | 2009-10-09 05:55:05 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 225617, 473303 | ||
|
Description
Jens Petersen
2009-01-21 23:29:44 UTC
Fontconfig got fixed but the package still needs updating to the new macros I think. This is going to miss F11 - dropping from F11Target. 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 ok, i will work on this next week (In reply to comment #4) > ok, i will work on this next week ping? http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts-0.3-9.fc11.src.rpm http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts.spec i think it need review as it is very basic package and its merge-review is also pending can someone review it? I'll look at it this evening Well fc-scan shows that most of the bdf files declare themselves as "Fixed", two of them think they are "Fangsong ti" and the others are not parsable by fc-scan. So you need at minimum a 1. a foo-fixed-fonts subpackage, 2. a foo-fangsong-ti-fonts subpackage, 3. and get Behdad to look at the other files and tell you if it's a bug his side or if the files need some form of fixing. Fontconfig won't be able to use them if it can't read the font name inside. The readme says they are Lucida but fontconfig does not read readmes. Also - it would be probably cleaner to package the ucs fonts in a ucs-fixed-fonts package instead of hiding their origin in a collection package - the licensing of Fangsong ti needs to be extracted from the fonts in a .txt people can actually read. (In reply to comment #8) > 2. a foo-fangsong-ti-fonts subpackage, bitmap-cjk-fonts has only fansongti fonts file, should we change it name? like bitmap-cjk-fangsongti-fonts > > Also > - it would be probably cleaner to package the ucs fonts in a ucs-fixed-fonts > package instead of hiding their origin in a collection package can you elaborate more on this, which font exactly? As I commented in the merge review (and this still needs proper checking) but most bdf fonts already seem to be in xorg-x11-fonts - so I am starting wonder if this package could just be dropped become fangsongti-fonts? (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > 2. a foo-fangsong-ti-fonts subpackage, > bitmap-cjk-fonts has only fansongti fonts file, should we change it name? > like bitmap-cjk-fangsongti-fonts I'd not mention the cjk bit at all > > Also > > - it would be probably cleaner to package the ucs fonts in a ucs-fixed-fonts > > package instead of hiding their origin in a collection package > > can you elaborate more on this, which font exactly? The readme says fixed is a copy of http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/ucs-fonts.html If we packaged it today it'd end up in a ucs-fonts or ucs-fixed-fonts srpm, not something else entirely. Also as Jens wrote we need to de-duplicate with xorg-x11-fonts, but xorg-x11-fonts is another package that needs reorganisation (In reply to comment #8) > 3. and get Behdad to look at the other files and tell you if it's a bug his > side or if the files need some form of fixing. Fontconfig won't be able to use > them if it can't read the font name inside. The readme says they are Lucida but > fontconfig does not read readmes. BTW due to a mock bug I checked the files in the srpm, not the files in the built rpm, so it may be that this is already fixed as part of the current build process (need to check the existing repo-font-audit tool for what it says about this package) sorry for bit late update fc-scan works fine on all *.pcf files i have done suggested changes updated spec and srpm are as follows http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts/bitmap-fonts.spec http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts/bitmap-fonts-0.3-10.fc11.src.rpm also created a new package request for ucs-fixed-fonts bug 526204 i have build bitmap-fonts-0_3-9_fc12, with spec submitted in comment #6 better to do update bitmap-fonts with merge review for F13 and also looks good to close this f12-blocker bug and do discussion on Merge Review on bug 225617 bitmap-fonts-0.3-9.fc12 successfully moved from dist-f12-updates-candidate into dist-f12 if any problem reopen bug |