Description of problem: We haven't updated smc-fonts in 4 years in Fedora. A lot of updates and fixes were made and a new font was added by upstream in the meantime. With that, a lot of discussions on how to manage the releases of fonts also took place, because by then each font was being updated differently and was getting a different version number. Upstream moved to Gitlab instead of Savannah and each font with its own version number is hosted in individual repository now, see https://gitlab.com/smc/fonts. Fedora can no longer depend on the existing packaging mechanism of single tarball and single makefile, as some fonts use different build tools (e.g. Manjari uses UFO+Fontmake) as well. I've discussed with pravins and he suggests to split the fonts and open a bug for that. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 6.1 How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
That would be awfully nice. Please note however that I will push a font packaging macro rewrite sometime this month in devel.
Thanks Rajeesh for reporting bug. As we discussed, we were having same problem with lohit-fonts packages, Now each font is separate package and maintenance is easy.
Splitting of smc-fonts into individual font package is completed and available for use in f30+
Thanks Vishal! Could you share the pagure/packages URL to the new packages repo?
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-anjalioldlipi-fonts https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-dyuthi-fonts https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-meera-fonts https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-rachana-fonts https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-raghumalayalamsans-fonts https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-suruma-fonts
(In reply to vishal vijayraghavan from comment #5) > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-anjalioldlipi-fonts > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-dyuthi-fonts > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-meera-fonts > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-rachana-fonts > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-raghumalayalamsans-fonts > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-suruma-fonts Builds for individual smc-fonts: smc-raghumalayalamsans-fonts: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1180854 smc-anjalioldlipi-fonts: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1180851 smc-dyuthi-fonts: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1180850 smc-suruma-fonts: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1180849 smc-rachana-fonts: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1180845 smc-meera-fonts: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1180843
(In reply to vishal vijayraghavan from comment #5) > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-anjalioldlipi-fonts > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-dyuthi-fonts > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-meera-fonts > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-rachana-fonts > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-raghumalayalamsans-fonts > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/smc-suruma-fonts Just a thought. The font packaging guidelines say we SHOULD build from source if possible [1]. Any particular reason not to follow that? (The upstream Makefile is not very well suited for Fedora, but I can engage with upstream if anything could be improved). [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_building_from_sources
If you can build from sources please do so. That's the only way to make sure our font building infra is sane and we will be able to use it the day someone needs a fix in the font files and upstream is busy somewhere else. (and that also makes sure Fedora is something upstream can rely on should it need to). DejaVu for example builds fine from source in Fedora, that's the result of a cooperation between us and the font project to fix the required Makefile parts.
Thank you Rajeesh and Nicolas for bringing up this topic. Have rebuild all fonts from sources except smc-suruma-fonts because of the missing file and also have reported it in upstream[1] [1] https://gitlab.com/smc/fonts/suruma/issues/4
(In reply to vishal vijayraghavan from comment #9) > Thank you Rajeesh and Nicolas for bringing up this topic. > Have rebuild all fonts from sources except smc-suruma-fonts because of the > missing file and also have reported it in upstream[1] > > [1] https://gitlab.com/smc/fonts/suruma/issues/4 I've just fixed the issue with Suruma and tagged a new release.