Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 480450
[fbida] Adapt to font package renamings
Last modified: 2009-02-26 09:18:20 EST
Notification of font package renamings
FPC unexpectedly refused to ratify a proposal that put into writing our de-facto font package naming rules for the past years, and requested naming changes. As a result many font packages have been or will be renamed soon (including recently created packages)
We have detected your package depends on such a font package. Please change your dependencies accordingly.
To ease the transition and avoid breaking F11 Alpha DejaVu has already been renamed but still declares its old names for full via rpm Provides. Those provides will be removed for Fedora 11 beta, to ensure no remaining legacy deps remains in the distribution. In the meanwhile packages depending on DejaVu full won't break and can be adapted at your leasure.
[Natural language informal translation]
In this issue you're just warned font packages you depend on have been/will be
renamed shortly, so your package dependencies will break. There is not much to do except changing your deps once that happens (dejavu has been renamed, liberation has in koji but has not hit rawhide yet, smc had been
too, and you may depend on others yet)
[Just to be 100% clear I didn't ask for this last renaming run, FPC demanded naming changes for "consistency" against my advice, I'm only the good little soldier who gets to implement their decision and be yelled at, so if you're not happy complain at them not me.]
While at it -- couldn't you reconsider dependency solely on bitstream-vera fonts? Why would deja fonts (default in Fedora and based on bistream-vera) are not enough?
(In reply to comment #3)
> While at it -- couldn't you reconsider dependency solely on bitstream-vera
> fonts? Why would deja fonts (default in Fedora and based on bistream-vera) are
> not enough?
I am lost what I have to do with the font dependencies. The wiki has too much information and I have no clue. It just needs some font and I do not care which one. So if you know what needs to be changed in the spec file... You are welcome to do the necessary changes.
[matej@viklef coreutils]$ rpm -qR fbida |grep fonts
I am just hijacking this bug -- it has absolutely nothing to do with this bug as such. I am just complaining that fbida (uselessly, IMHO) brings to my computer bitstream-vera-fonts, which are identical to deja fonts except only for ISO 8859-1 (deja fonts work well for all languages of the world).
I will take a look at the spec
Actually my issue seems to be fixed in Rawhide (not in F10, why?)
Concerning the naming of the fonts -- what font exactly you need? From looking at the package itself, I don't see any hard requirements. So then dejavu-sans-mono-fonts (I think same FAQ says that it should be Monospace) should fit the bill perfectly, right?
This is a reminder for all the packagers that still have bugs open about adapting to font packaging guidelines there is only one month left before Fedora 11 beta:
A week of this month will see the Fedora 11 mass rebuild, that will load the build farm:
As already converted packages showed it is quite possible to make mistakes during the conversion. Please make releng and QA happy and don't wait till the last minute to do your changes (avoid pre-beta panic). If possible start before the mass rebuild so we don't burn cycles on incorrect packages.
The PackageKit enhancements stated for Fedora 11 assume fonts and font-using packages are sane (basically respect packaging guidelines). It is quite possible that not-converted packages will interact with the F11 font autoinstall feature in "interesting" ways.
We don't want that
There is extensive documentation on the wiki and most of your questions have likely already been answered there. Please do read the FAQ before making more work for the support team by asking questions answered there.
Testing package is on http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/fbida-2.07-5.fc11.src.rpm but apparently koji is broken, right now.
Build as http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=89370