This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide. If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com
[Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.] This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files: repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now. Otherwise, you should know that: — Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages — our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please). If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories. It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples: ❄ andika-fonts ❄ apanov-heuristica-fonts ❄ bitstream-vera-fonts ❄ charis-fonts ❄ dejavu-fonts ❄ ecolier-court-fonts ❄ edrip-fonts ❄ gfs-ambrosia-fonts ❄ gfs-artemisia-fonts ❄ gfs-baskerville-fonts ❄ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ❄ gfs-bodoni-fonts ❄ gfs-complutum-fonts ❄ gfs-didot-classic-fonts ❄ gfs-didot-fonts ❄ gfs-eustace-fonts ❄ gfs-fleischman-fonts ❄ gfs-garaldus-fonts ❄ gfs-gazis-fonts ❄ gfs-jackson-fonts ❄ gfs-neohellenic-fonts ❄ gfs-nicefore-fonts ❄ gfs-olga-fonts ❄ gfs-porson-fonts ❄ gfs-solomos-fonts ❄ gfs-theokritos-fonts ❄ stix-fonts ❄ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com
What about fonts which are dedicated to produce internal documentation? This package (jack-audio-connection-kit-devel indeed contains *.ttf file to build *.pdf documentation from a LaTeX file. So, I consider this requirement at least incorrent in such case.
Fonts used to produce internal documentation have the same legal constraints as fonts used in other ways. So yes if you ship ttf fonts for any reason you need to follow the same guidelines as everyone else. If you don't want to make a proper font package or subpackage you should work out with our TEX packagers how to use system TEX materials instead of shipping your own. But packaging fonts properly is likely to be less work
As I described in [1] the jack-audio-connection-kit is a good package. Please, fix doxygen instead and feel reopen this bug lately. I can put then requirements of new doxygen package if you want to. [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg00117.html
I've filled bug #478747 on doxygen if that makes you feel better, but really, it's an easy fix in your package and there's no reason to postpone the fix till the tools you use are eventually fixed upstream
I have built new package which doesn't include any font: [root@dhcppc55 ~]# rpm -qlp /home/andy/RPM/RPMS/i386/jack-audio-connection-kit-* | grep -E '.(ttf|pfa|pfb|ofa)$' [root@dhcppc55 ~]# Thanks for report! Koji logs: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=77084
jack-audio-connection-kit-0.116.1-3.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jack-audio-connection-kit-0.116.1-3.fc10
jack-audio-connection-kit-0.116.1-3.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jack-audio-connection-kit-0.116.1-3.fc9
jack-audio-connection-kit-0.116.1-3.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
jack-audio-connection-kit-0.116.1-3.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.