Bug 1258542 - Review Request: hack-fonts - A typeface designed for source code
Review Request: hack-fonts - A typeface designed for source code
Status: NEW
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Shawn Starr
Shawn Starr
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2015-08-31 11:21 EDT by Helio Chissini de Castro
Modified: 2017-05-21 15:30 EDT (History)
20 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
helio: fedora‑review?


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Helio Chissini de Castro 2015-08-31 11:21:00 EDT
Spec URL: https://heliocastro.fedorapeople.org/hack-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: https://heliocastro.fedorapeople.org/hack-fonts-2.010-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description: A typeface designed for source code
Fedora Account System Username: heliocastro
Comment 1 Adam Williamson 2015-08-31 21:02:11 EDT
From the policy: "Fonts SHOULD be built from source whenever upstream provides them in a source format" - upstream does appear to provide source here.
Comment 2 Helio Chissini de Castro 2015-09-01 08:18:45 EDT
Yep

They have the source, but no instructions how to build it whatsoever.
I just followed the same process used on Overpass Red Hat font, which has the source available, but same way, only the type faces are included.
Comment 3 Arun Raghavan 2015-09-08 01:49:12 EDT
Relevant: https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/issues/85
Comment 4 Christopher Meng 2015-09-08 04:30:11 EDT
NEW version released.
Comment 5 Nicolas Mailhot 2015-09-08 05:27:28 EDT
(In reply to Helio Chissini de Castro from comment #2)
> Yep
> 
> They have the source, but no instructions how to build it whatsoever.
> I just followed the same process used on Overpass Red Hat font, which has
> the source available, but same way, only the type faces are included.

This is ridiculous, the fonts are derived from DejaVu, and DejaVu build is completely scripted. The project just need to fork the build scripts like it forked everything else, and decide on a naming policy
Comment 6 Fabio Alessandro Locati 2015-10-03 14:21:38 EDT
I really hope to see this package in the main repo soon :)
Comment 7 Shawn Starr 2015-10-21 12:21:52 EDT
Where are we in this review? Upstream is excited to get Hack into Fedora.
Comment 9 Shawn Starr 2016-02-09 18:58:19 EST
Any further update on this?
Comment 10 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-10-07 09:25:55 EDT
Package request has been denied with the reason: Review not approved.
Comment 11 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-10-07 09:26:30 EDT
Package request has been denied with the reason: Review not approved.
Comment 12 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-10-07 09:27:06 EDT
Package request has been denied with the reason: Review not approved.
Comment 13 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-10-07 09:27:37 EDT
Package request has been denied with the reason: Review not approved.
Comment 14 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-10-07 09:29:06 EDT
Package request has been denied with the reason: Review not approved.
Comment 15 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-10-07 09:30:07 EDT
Package request has been denied with the reason: Review not approved.
Comment 16 Shawn Starr 2016-10-07 23:48:35 EDT
I will do review since I want this font already. Expect a review for tomorrow.
Comment 17 Shawn Starr 2016-10-07 23:49:26 EDT
I'll just take this over if nobody is doing this, will ask for a review.
Comment 18 Helio Chissini de Castro 2016-10-08 02:36:55 EDT
Thanks Shawn.
This was strangely forgotten.
Comment 19 Shawn Starr 2016-10-09 00:53:07 EDT
Before we can even move to package this, does anyone know how this is built? I've opened a ticket on upstream's github, Debian has this packaged but I don't see them doing any source builds of the fonts.

I need some clarification on our policy for this. Given Debian is even more severe for requiring sources, maybe Fedora should follow Debian's guide on this?
Comment 20 Helio Chissini de Castro 2016-10-10 02:40:13 EDT
Debian is using same approach as me, using the precompiled ttf/otf
The only thing is that we're deploying only ttf and debian both ones.

And i personally don't know if worth pack the web fonts.
Comment 21 Shawn Starr 2016-10-10 05:26:54 EDT
Well, if it's acceptable to Debian surely this should be acceptable to Fedora, if not something seems wrong with our policy...
Comment 22 Adam Williamson 2016-12-22 19:04:48 EST
Debian is not inevitably 'freer' than Fedora. Our requirements are more strict in some ways. Just because Debian doesn't (and, AFAICT, never has) required fonts to be compiled from source doesn't mean we're wrong in requiring this.
Comment 23 Peter Oliver 2016-12-29 18:17:07 EST
Upstream bug regarding building this font from source: https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/issues/227
Comment 24 Shawn Starr 2017-01-01 17:33:53 EST
I am in contact with upstream, they are looking at improving our ability to build the fonts from scratch. More on this when they get back to me.
Comment 25 Randy Barlow 2017-04-18 17:00:53 EDT
The Hack license is now acceptable for Fedora:

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/MJ4Q3D6JLDVX4OHSF3YXY76Z6BYSKKQR/

Also, FWIW I could really use the web fonts for Bodhi (which is why I wanted to package Hack) so I would appreciate if you could include a subpackage with those files.

I'm willing to review this package if nobody else has a "claim" on reviewing it.
Comment 26 Randy Barlow 2017-04-18 17:10:47 EDT
After reading the scrollback it does sound like Shawn is lined up to do the review so I'll defer, but I'm happy to be a standin. I'll memorize my lines.

My interpretation of the packaging rules is that SHOULD != MUST when it comes to building the font from source. The font guidelines do use the word "MUST" in other places so I take that to mean that this shouldn't block the package from getting into Fedora. It's obviously better if we build the font from source, but since there isn't a clear way to do that provided by upstream I don't think we have to wait for https://github.com/chrissimpkins/Hack/issues/227 to be solved to get this into Fedora. I would recommend allowing the package in with the OTF files (and hopefully web files for me ☺) and then filing a BZ to build from source if possible later.
Comment 27 Adam Williamson 2017-04-18 17:16:23 EDT
Well, there's still the *general* packaging guidelines to consider. I don't think the font guidelines supersede those, in fact the section on packaging from source specifically references back to them. And they're quite specific about when you get an exception from the requirement to build from source.
Comment 28 Shawn Starr 2017-04-18 18:09:18 EDT
I've poked Chris on twitter, you can certainly help with packaging, it's always good to have co-maintainers.
Comment 29 Randy Barlow 2017-04-19 12:20:50 EDT
Adam, fair enough.

Shawn, if you don't want to deal with the web files I'd be happy to handle that part as a co-maintainer.
Comment 30 Shawn Starr 2017-04-24 01:56:13 EDT
Here is the tool can use to build the fonts

https://github.com/GoogleI18N/fontmake

We will need this packaged too as a dependency for building, if we want to build them now.
Comment 31 rugk 2017-05-21 11:04:48 EDT
Any news here?
Comment 32 Shawn Starr 2017-05-21 15:30:43 EDT
I should have something soon, i'll put up a .spec for review this week.

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