Bug 1165520 - Add appstream font metainfo file
Summary: Add appstream font metainfo file
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: libreoffice
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Caolan McNamara
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-11-19 05:39 UTC by Parag Nemade
Modified: 2015-01-13 20:53 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-01-13 20:53:36 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
Add font metainfo file (2.28 KB, application/mbox)
2014-11-19 05:39 UTC, Parag Nemade
no flags Details
metainfo file for opensymbol (575 bytes, application/xml)
2014-11-19 14:32 UTC, Parag Nemade
no flags Details

Description Parag Nemade 2014-11-19 05:39:05 UTC
Description of problem:
Please add font metainfo file as requested by Richard Hughes on devel list https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-October/203394.html

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
libreoffice-4.3.4.1-2.fc22

If possible please add same in F21.

Comment 1 Parag Nemade 2014-11-19 05:39:39 UTC
Created attachment 958889 [details]
Add font metainfo file

Comment 2 David Tardon 2014-11-19 14:17:14 UTC
It would be more useful if you attached the appdata file .-)

Comment 3 Parag Nemade 2014-11-19 14:32:13 UTC
Created attachment 958982 [details]
metainfo file for opensymbol

Comment 4 David Tardon 2014-11-19 15:14:07 UTC
Citing Richard's blog: "If your package just contains one font used internally, or where there is only partial coverage of the alphabet, I don’t think we want to show this in GNOME Software, and thus it doesn’t need any new MetaInfo files." Which is the case here. Or am I missing something?

Comment 5 Parag Nemade 2014-11-19 15:41:17 UTC
I too need to know more about this from Richard then as I believe he created that list based on some input he got as more popular/important fonts.

Let's get his opinion on this.

Comment 6 Richard Hughes 2014-11-26 09:54:13 UTC
Well, is this a font we want to show? If it's useful in other programs and contains enough glyphs to render all of what I want to show it probably deserves to be shown. If it's a small font only designed to be used internally it probably doesn't make much sense to add it.

Comment 7 Caolan McNamara 2015-01-13 20:53:36 UTC
I don't think its a good universal font. Packed full of pua wingdings. We used to hide it inside our own dirs at one point and not in the system until various packaging rules had us move it out. So on that basis that we tend to see it as a "font designed to be used internally" then lets take that approach. I'm not adverse to adding the metadata though if anyone feels strongly about it


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.