Description of problem: I am not a ruby packager but I saw that ruby-rdoc is bundling fonts. $ rpm -ql rubygem-rdoc | grep ttf /usr/share/gems/gems/rdoc-4.2.0/lib/rdoc/generator/template/darkfish/fonts/Lato-Light.ttf /usr/share/gems/gems/rdoc-4.2.0/lib/rdoc/generator/template/darkfish/fonts/Lato-LightItalic.ttf /usr/share/gems/gems/rdoc-4.2.0/lib/rdoc/generator/template/darkfish/fonts/Lato-Regular.ttf /usr/share/gems/gems/rdoc-4.2.0/lib/rdoc/generator/template/darkfish/fonts/Lato-RegularItalic.ttf /usr/share/gems/gems/rdoc-4.2.0/lib/rdoc/generator/template/darkfish/fonts/SourceCodePro-Bold.ttf /usr/share/gems/gems/rdoc-4.2.0/lib/rdoc/generator/template/darkfish/fonts/SourceCodePro-Regular.ttf I see as we have both the fonts packaged (srpms -> lato-fonts and adobe-source-code-pro-fonts) in Fedora, we should Requires: them in spec and link the font files in rdoc directory. Checked on Fedora 22 with rubygem-rdoc-4.2.0-40.fc22.noarch
Any thoughts here?
Ping? can any maintainer reply here?
Thank you for the report. Unfortunately, this is not the only place where these fonts are embedded. They have copy in every rubygem-*-doc subpackage, and this is not an easy task to solve :/
Just FTR, this [1] is discussion on related topic with upstream. [1] https://github.com/rdoc/rdoc/issues/186
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 25 development cycle. Changing version to '25'.
btw, Why is it that rubygem documentation carries font files and if the same font is available in Fedora, can we not unbundle that font from rubygem packages? If anyone has thought/experimented this before, I would like to know more about that here.
I am thinking about this issue for ages. The thing is that this is not just about fonts, but about jQuery as well, which you have probably missed (or there is another bug for that? not sure now). May be it would make sense to extract the template from RDoc into separate package and use that template (instead of the bundled one) for generating the documentation of system gems. That way we could be sure, that there might be some breakage in documentation only when the template package changes ... Actually, the question also is, if the fonts need to be in the generated documentation at all, since the browser should be able to find and use them if they are available on the system, not sure ...
let's close this bug as there is no fix available for this. If someone still want to work on this bug then please open another fresh bug.