[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

updated specs,
It will be in tomorrows rawhide

Thank you very much for looking at this

FPC approved those two additional guidelines recently, please take them into account if you need to create or update a fonts package or subpackage:

– 2009-01-14: naming
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_%282009-01-13%29

— 2009-01-06: exact splitting rules
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_%282008-12-21%29

(packagers that can drop font files and just depend on an existing font package are not impacted)

spec is updated, and Koji has built the rawhide packages successfully.

Some QA comments:

— you should not include package names in descriptions; when the packages are renamed you get to fix all the descriptions ;)
— I feel it's a bit easier to read when the %_font_pkg are kept next to the corresponding subpackage declaration, but then I wrote the template
– for some reason yum does not want to update from smc-fonts-kalyani, but your spec look sane so it may be a yum bug

(In reply to comment #6)

> – for some reason yum does not want to update from smc-fonts-kalyani, but your
> spec look sane so it may be a yum bug

After spending ~ 3h trying to understand why smc-fonts would not update James Antill noticed there is a typo in the versions used in the obsoletes rules:

The kalyani subpackage declares
Obsoletes: %{name}-kalyani < 04-1.3

instead of
Obsoletes: %{name}-kalyani < 04.1-3

James advises simplifying your release numbering.

He also stated you owe him a cherry coke :)

Ah, my bad!
Will fix them all soon.
I offer him a beer next time we meet ;-)

Thanks Nicolas!

Updated the SPEC with all the changes suggested. Packages are built for rawhide.

Hi Nicolas,

Can we close this bug?

Always feel free to close bugs once you've done the changes and checked they do what was intended, reporters are not always timely available to close bugs :p

Thanks, I just wanted to have a confirmation :-)