Created attachment 996667 [details]
new spec file
I noticed that Mr. Douros had a new version of the Symbola font which supports Unicode 7.0 glyphs, so I thought I'd lend a hand and I am attaching a revised spec file.
Several things to note:
1. There is now a font with hinting (Symbola_hint.ttf). I have included it in the spec file, but I was not sure if I should add some info to the fontconfig or the AppData files.
2. The Symbola.pdf is no longer included in the package, but it is hosted on the website, so I added that to the sources. Could you please check if the syntax could be improved? I don't have much experience in building rpms, but I'm trying to learn.
3. The source zip contains an MS Word file and an HTML file, with samples. I opted not to include them in the package, but should the HTML have landed in the doc section?
Unfortunately, I've already proposed to update the package, and the maintainer doesn't seem to respond. Do you know how to proceed if we get no reply again?
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #1)
> Do you know how to proceed if we get no reply again?
fedora-active-user reports this for ozamosi:
Last login in FAS:
Last action on koji:
Mon, 03 Nov 2014 package list entry revoked: gdouros-symbola-fonts in f21-Beta by ausil
Last package update on bodhi:
No activity found on bodhi
Last actions performed according to fedmsg:
- ozamosi updated their irc filters on 2015-02-12 22:34:58
- ozamosi updated their irc filters on 2015-02-12 22:34:56
- ozamosi updated their irc filters on 2015-02-12 22:34:54
- ozamosi updated their email filters on 2015-02-12 22:34:54
- ozamosi updated their email filters on 2015-02-12 22:34:52
- ozamosi updated their email filters on 2015-02-12 22:34:50
So maybe he is on vacation or something?
Ah, thanks. Doesn't look like he's on vacation, as bug 1131000 has been filed in August. So apart from the filters update, which may well be an automated thing given the very close timestamps, no activities appear for one year and a half. Do you think comments on bug 1131000 count for the "two failed attempts" mentioned by the policy? Should we start with step 3 then (mail to fedora-devel)?
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #3)
> Do you think comments on bug 1131000 count for the "two
> failed attempts" mentioned by the policy? Should we start with step 3 then
> (mail to fedora-devel)?
Not really sure about that, but a message to fedora-devel with links to the bug reports wouldn't hurt in any case. I'm a little busy with some work-related stuff until ~Wednesday, so if you don't mind proceeding on your own, please do.
In the mean time, the spec file works as expected and rpmlint doesn't object to anything in the src.rpm, so if you need it, you can build the font package with it. However, the issues that I have outlined above remain.
Created attachment 998123 [details]
7.21 spec file
I am attaching a spec file for the recent 7.21 font. I have also started a thread on the fedora-devel ml, we'll have to wait and see.
Created attachment 1001433 [details]
7.21-2 spec file
There is newer version of the font and after a brief discussion on the mailing list and some info provided by the creator of the font, I have removed the hinted version.
Milan, it seems that ozamosi is still active:
Last action on koji:
Sat, 07 Mar 2015 package list entry created: msimonson-anonymouspro-fonts in f22-Alpha by ausil [still active]
I suggest you try to contact him and apply for co-maintainership, if you are still interested.
Hmm, I'm not sure that's real activity. I don't see any updates or build for that package for several months. Looks like another automated thing. Given nobody replied to your message on -devel, I think we should open a ticket on Trac. Are you interested in becoming a co-maintainer, since you've already done the work? Doesn't look like I can be very useful, except maybe for a review if you want.
I will try to contact him directly and if he does not respond by next Saturday, I will continue the process, starting from a message on fedora-devel, because my previous one had a little bit of everything in it, so it might have been missed. By the end of the process, the package will become an orphan and it will be up for grabs.
I wouldn't mind taking ownership, but a) I do not know a lot about fonts, b) I am not in the packagers group and c) if you compare my last spec file to the latest by ozamosi, the only difference is that it contains the Symbola.pdf file that was split from the source package and I still haven't figured out what to do with the documentation that is in MS Word format, so I haven't done that much work. If or when the package is declared an orphan, don't have any qualms about taking it, especially if you are in the packagers group. If you are not, we can toss a coin or something.
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database. Reassigning to the new owner of this component.
gdouros-symbola-fonts-7.21-0.3.20150430.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
gdouros-symbola-fonts-7.21-0.3.20150430.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.