Spec file URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/69oldstandard-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/69oldstandard-fonts-1-1.fc9.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #0) > Spec file URL: > http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/69oldstandard-fonts.spec > SRPM URL: > http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/69oldstandard-fonts-1-1.fc9.src.rpm "I am a new packager and I am looking for a sponsor." Spec file URL:: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/oldstandard-fonts.spec SRPM URL:: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/oldstandard-fonts-1-1.fc9.src.rpm
The spec file and package name differ. Shouldn't the package be named 69oldstandard as you also originally submitted? rpmlint says: 69oldstandard-fonts.src: E: description-line-too-long Old Standard is an attempt to provide a high quality font, suitable for classical, biblical and medieval studies as well as for general-purpose typesetting in languages which use Greek or Cyrillic script, 69oldstandard-fonts.src: E: no-changelogname-tag 69oldstandard-fonts.src: W: non-coherent-filename oldstandard-fonts-1-1.fc9.src.rpm 69oldstandard-fonts-1-1.fc9.src.rpm error checking signature of oldstandard-fonts-1-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. Do you really need these: <match target="pattern"> <test name="family"> <string>sans-serif</string> </test> <test name="lang" compare="contains"> <string>jp</string> </test> <edit name="lang" mode="prepend" binding="strong"> <string>en</string> </edit> </match> <alias> <family>sans-serif</family> <prefer> <family>DejaVu Sans</family> </prefer> </alias> in the fontconfig file? The srpm file also seems to be corrupted I am afraid: 69oldstandard-fonts-1-1.fc9 warning: user Package does not exist - using root warning: group Package does not exist - using root warning: user Package does not exist - using root warning: group Package does not exist - using root warning: user Ankur does not exist - using root warning: group Ankur does not exist - using root error: unpacking of archive failed on file /home/package-review/oldstandard-fonts/oldstand-1.0.ttf.zip;48e9897c: cpio: read
rpmlint on binary package: 69oldstandard-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/69oldstandard-fonts-1/OFL-FAQ.txt 69oldstandard-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/69oldstandard-fonts-1/OFL.txt 69oldstandard-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Old Standard is an attempt to provide a high quality font, suitable for classical, biblical and medieval studies as well as for general-purpose typesetting in languages which use Greek or Cyrillic script, 69oldstandard-fonts.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. (In reply to comment #2) > The spec file and package name differ. Shouldn't the package be named > 69oldstandard as you also originally submitted? Rather I guess you intended to rename it to oldstandard-fonts.
(In reply to comment #3) > rpmlint on binary package: > > 69oldstandard-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/69oldstandard-fonts-1/OFL-FAQ.txt > 69oldstandard-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/69oldstandard-fonts-1/OFL.txt > 69oldstandard-fonts.noarch: E: description-line-too-long Old Standard is an > attempt to provide a high quality font, suitable for classical, biblical and > medieval studies as well as for general-purpose typesetting in languages which > use Greek or Cyrillic script, > 69oldstandard-fonts.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. > > (In reply to comment #2) > > The spec file and package name differ. Shouldn't the package be named > > 69oldstandard as you also originally submitted? > > Rather I guess you intended to rename it to oldstandard-fonts. updated the packages.. http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/69oldstandard-fonts-1-1.fc9.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/69oldstandard-fonts.spec
Also: 1. please rebuild from sfd sources since they're available. Very basic examples are in the inconsolata package, more complete makefiles in dejavu or liberation 2. please rename the font in the process as upstream does not want us to use the same font name if we rebuild the fonts (just a sed on the sfd before the build) 3. you probably want to target the OTF variant http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Choosing_the_right_font_format_to_package 4. please add a fontconfig rule that substitute your new name to old standard so documents that reference old standards continue to work 5. 69 is probably a bit low as priority, 60 would be fine for a good cyrillic font as this one is 6. why do you feel you need to change hinting for this font? 7. please register it as a serif font in fontconfig Anyway Old standard is a very nice font and I hope you'll make a nice package from it
(In reply to comment #4) > http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/69oldstandard-fonts-1-1.fc9.src.rpm > http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/69oldstandard-fonts.spec I still don't understand why the package is being named 69oldstandard-fonts?? Is the correct name oldstandard-fonts?
(In reply to comment #6) > I still don't understand why the package is being named 69oldstandard-fonts?? > Is the correct name oldstandard-fonts? The correct upstream name is Old Standard However upstream has asked us to rename if we rebuilt from sfds I guess 69oldstandard is as good as any renaming (though I'd have used 69-old-standard-fonts)
> The correct upstream name is Old Standard That is not a valid package name. :) > However upstream has asked us to rename if we rebuilt from sfds > I guess 69oldstandard is as good as any renaming (though I'd have used > 69-old-standard-fonts) I assumed that meant the name of the Fonts not the package itself? The 69 is meaningless to me: as far as I can tell it is just an erroneous prefix coming from the fontconfig conf file priortity?? (I might be almost tempted to suggest then let's not bother to rebuild, but anyway.) old-standard-sfd-fonts, anyone?
As I'm building this package ( I haven't seen this review request), I will help Ankur to pushed it to the official repos. For the name, I approve the "old-standard-sfd-fonts" name (as the author accept that we just put a suffix). For the fontconfig.conf, it's not my cup of tea, so better you follow Nicolas' advices ^^ I propose this spec (http://home.scarlet.be/~tsi30161/oldstandard.spec) to show how to build the font (without changelog nor fontconfig.conf). I choose to build to .ttf as it seems that the font author prefers it.
Well, you really need to sed the sfd files too so the font name (as displayed in applications is not Old Standard but Old Standard SFD (or something like this) Appart from that both yours and Ankur's submissions clearly need more baking. Please work together or separately so we have something solid to review (the run of reviews I did today should provide good guidance, just look at them in the fedora-fonts-bugs-list archive
BTW if you need to see an example of programmaticaly changing a font name at build time, just check how DejaVu does it for DejaVu LGC in its build scripts
(In reply to comment #11) > BTW if you need to see an example of programmaticaly changing a font name at > build time, just check how DejaVu does it for DejaVu LGC in its build scripts hi, rebuilt: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/oldstandard-sfd-fonts-1.1-1.fc9.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/oldstandard-sfd-fonts.spec
This one is much nicer but you need to work on renaming the font at build time inside the sfds and also to work on the fontconfig rules. Please take some time with Pablo on those. Also it needs the same doc fix as bonveno.
Some comments: 1- When you make a change, you increase the "Dist" number, not the "Version" one's. 2- Paste the following after the "%setup" for i in $(ls OldStandard*.ttf.sfd); do sed -i -e 's/OldStandardTT/OldStandardSFD/' -e 's/Old Standard TT/Old Standard SFD/' $i; done It's the renaming of the font just before the building. 3- A little improvement to the fontconfig rules, add the following : <alias binding="same"> <family>Old Standard</family> <accept> <family>Old Standard SFD</family> </accept> </alias>
ping ?
(In reply to comment #15) > ping ? pong! hi.. have end semester exams so a little tied up.. will do it this week for sure..
(In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > ping ? > > pong! > > hi.. have end semester exams so a little tied up.. will do it this week for > sure.. hi, sorry for the delay.. rebuilt with the changes advised by Pablo.. here are the new files.. http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/oldstandard-sfd-fonts-1.1-1.fc9.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/oldstandard-sfd-fonts.spec The doc on changelog doesnt tell me which ones dist and which ones version.. :( so i havent changed that in this one.. (pablo please help me with this) The warnings for the docs is still present.. How do i correct that? Also is there a better documentation for fontconfig rules somewhere? regards, Ankur
(In reply to comment #17) > The warnings for the docs is still present.. How do i correct that? You have many examples of txt frobbing in the gfs font specs. Pablo can help you if needed. Also I'd have added http://www.thessalonica.org.ru/downloads/oldstand-manual.pdf in %doc > Also is there a better documentation for fontconfig rules somewhere? I'm not aware of better documentation than http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips or I wouldn't have bothered writing it in the first place Again do ask your reviewer (Pablo) or the list if you have problems understanding part of it. It's a wiki and it can be fixed. It's no use leaving obscure parts in it for other packagers to fail on. You have many font substitution examples in the dejavu font packages. Do not forget to declare your font is an acceptable substitute for all the different Old Standard variant out there (TTF, OTF, etc) Otherwise the fontconfig info in there http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/rpm-fonts-1.8.tar.bz2 should apply as-is for Fedora versions < 11 (but not the rest)
hi, updated the packages.. I did look at the pdf that youve mentioned.. I couldnt figure how to include it though, tried a few things but got stuck with errors.. here are the packages.. http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/oldstandard-sfd-fonts.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard-fonts/oldstandard-sfd-fonts-1.1-1.fc9.src.rpm Can you tell me how to change the changelog please?
you have an example of separate pdf included as %doc in the yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts As for the changelog, I'm sure Pablo would be happy to help you, if you told us precisely what your changelog problem was.
> The doc on changelog doesnt tell me which ones dist and which ones version.. :( > so i havent changed that in this one.. (pablo please help me with this) It's quite simple to understand, for exemple, your spec: Version: 1.1 Release: 1%{?dist} The number after "Version:" is the version one, it's given by upstream and you must not change it. So put "1.0" as it's the version of the font. The "Release:" number is a distro/package specific number, so each time you add an entry in the changelog, you increment by one this number. So currently, it should be "3%{?dist}". Also your changelog format is not correct, you have to add your email address as said in the guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs). > The warnings for the docs is still present.. How do i correct that? You should add the code proposed by Nicolas in the review request of the bonveno fonts in the %prep section . > You have many font substitution examples in the dejavu font packages. Do not > forget to declare your font is an acceptable substitute for all the different > Old Standard variant out there (TTF, OTF, etc) Ok, so you have to duplicate the XML code I gave you, and just change the first <family>Old Standard</family> to <family>Old Standard TTF</family>. For register this font as a serif one, add the following to the fontconfig file: <alias> <family>serif</family> <prefer> <family>Old Standard SFD</family> </prefer> </alias>
(In reply to comment #21) > > The doc on changelog doesnt tell me which ones dist and which ones version.. :( > > so i havent changed that in this one.. (pablo please help me with this) > It's quite simple to understand, for exemple, your spec: > Version: 1.1 > Release: 1%{?dist} > The number after "Version:" is the version one, it's given by upstream and you > must not change it. So put "1.0" as it's the version of the font. > The "Release:" number is a distro/package specific number, so each time you add > an entry in the changelog, you increment by one this number. So currently, it > should be "3%{?dist}". > > Also your changelog format is not correct, you have to add your email address > as said in the guidelines > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs). > > > > The warnings for the docs is still present.. How do i correct that? > You should add the code proposed by Nicolas in the review request of the > bonveno fonts in the %prep section . > > > You have many font substitution examples in the dejavu font packages. Do not > > forget to declare your font is an acceptable substitute for all the different > > Old Standard variant out there (TTF, OTF, etc) > Ok, so you have to duplicate the XML code I gave you, and just change the first > <family>Old Standard</family> to <family>Old Standard TTF</family>. > For register this font as a serif one, add the following to the fontconfig > file: > <alias> > <family>serif</family> > <prefer> > <family>Old Standard SFD</family> > </prefer> > </alias> hi, sorry for the delay.. Fedora 10 got me stuck up a bit.. Here are packages.. I used the new source the author has uploaded.. Also the FONTLOG in the src zip has version 2.0.2 so i used that in the spec. http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard_sfd_fonts/oldstandard-sfd-fonts-2.0.2-1.fc10.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard_sfd_fonts/oldstandard-sfd-fonts.spec
I have some problems with a /home partition corrupted currently. I will try to review this this week. It seems that we are near to the end of the review :-)
* I don't understand the following code, eventually, it should be <string>serif</string>, no ? <match target="pattern"> <test name="family"> <string>sans-serif</string> </test> </match> * Put the following codes in section %prep after %setup (and not in %build or in %install): -------- for txt in OFL* ; do sed 's/\r//' $txt > $txt.new touch -r $txt $txt.new mv $txt.new $txt done install -m 644 -p %{SOURCE2} . -------- * Do the %post and the %postun are useful ? I just find them in some fonts and no wiki page about it. Nicolas, an explanation ? * Now, the change needed by the new guideline: - Add the following in the right place : BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel Requires: fontpackages-filesystem - Remove "%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname}" and replace all the "%{fontdir}" by "%{_fontdir}" (it's now an official macro) - Replace "%config(noreplace) %{fontconfdir}/60-%{fontname}.conf" and "%{fontdir}/*.ttf" by "%_font_pkg -f 60-%{fontname}.conf *.ttf" (- There is something else with templatedir macro, but i don't understand how it work, i'll see)
The new official templates have removed explicit post and postun in font specs because packagers were messing it up, review couldn't catch all the problems, and the fontconfig maintainer was unhappy at font packagers. Conversion of existing packages to new templates is ongoing and some still use the old conventions. Please make this new package conformant to the new packaging guidelines.
hi, packages : http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard_sfd_fonts/oldstandard-sfd-fonts.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard_sfd_fonts/oldstandard-sfd-fonts-2.0.2-2.fc10.src.rpm same warning with the rpm for this package too : "oldstandard-sfd-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-oldstandard.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-oldstandard.conf " hope its okay other than that. @pablo : ive just really replaced the "font name" and "generic name" etc in the fontconfig template that nicolas has given. I dont exactly understand it. hope its okay other than that.. regards,
(In reply to comment #26) > same warning with the rpm for this package too : > "oldstandard-sfd-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative > /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-oldstandard.conf > /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-oldstandard.conf > " You can ignore this warning for now, it's not even sure if we'll keep in in Fedora rpmlint http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Absolute_symlinks_in_fonts_templates_%282009-01-02%29
Ok, for me, the spec file is now ok. Just about the fontconf, change the "sans-serif" to "serif". I will test the building this week-end. I will surely approved this package on Sunday.
hi, Made the change. packages : http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard_sfd_fonts/oldstandard-sfd-fonts.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/oldstandard_sfd_fonts/oldstandard-sfd-fonts-2.0.2-3.fc10.src.rpm regards, Ankur
Great ! The package is now APPROVED by me ! Congrats !
:D my first approved package! thanks!
According to this review Ankur needs a sponsor? and the first package can only be approved by one.
Ankur, what is your FAS account name? You should use the same email address for bugzilla and FAS.
hi, It's ankursinha. I have changed change my bugzilla login email to it. I do need a sponsor. regards, Ankur
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: oldstandard-sfd-fonts Short Description: Old Standard True-Type Fonts Owners: ankursinha Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: fonts-sig
cvs done.
As it seems that the packages have been uploaded and pushed in Bodhi, I close this review request.