Bug 526607 - Review Request: oflb-smonohand-fonts - A handwritten monospace font
Review Request: oflb-smonohand-fonts - A handwritten monospace font
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SMonoh...
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-09-30 21:05 EDT by Michel Alexandre Salim
Modified: 2009-10-20 20:58 EDT (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: 20090423-2.fc11
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-10-20 20:43:57 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
nicolas.mailhot: fedora‑review+
kevin: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-09-30 21:05:00 EDT
Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/fonts/openfontlibrary-smonohand-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/fonts/openfontlibrary-smonohand-fonts-20090423-1.fc12.src.rpm
Description:
SMonohand is a handwritten monospace Latin font with German
characters. It is comparable to Microsoft's Comic Sans or Apple's
Chalkboard.
Comment 1 Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-09-30 21:09:00 EDT
This is my first font package, so please be very thorough.
Comment 2 Sven Lankes 2009-10-01 09:47:21 EDT
The files are not available due to the fedorapeople.org crash.

Could you please re-upload them?
Comment 3 Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-10-01 12:18:15 EDT
Looks like the restore is now complete, and the files are back there. I didn't even notice the crash!
Comment 4 Nicolas Mailhot 2009-10-01 17:53:24 EDT
Thank you for submitting a new font package for review. I hope you'll find the process smooth and friendly, please do not hesitate to tell us what could be made better if something bugs you.

Anyway, for the review

1. we use oflb as prefix for openfontlibrary fonts 

2. the author claims he created this font in fontforge, so it'd be a good idea to beg for the sfd file upstream and build the font from source in the rpm

3. there is no licensing trace in the ttf file, and web pages are unfortunately not future proof. Please ask upstream to release the font in a zip file that includes a detached .txt licensing file (or at least use the fontforge button that embeds the OFL text in the .ttf)

4. IMHO this font should be classified as "fantasy" not "monospace" (see fontconfig-generics.txt in fontpackages-devel)

5. Why do you reference Droid Sans Mono in your fontconfig file? If that's because you cut and pasted from the Droid file, you have clean and documented fontconfig templates in fontpackages-devel (in /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/). The lastest rawhide version is probably the best reference for anything ≥ F11 (I'll probably push it to F11 if I stop finding things to improve every other week)

6. IMHO it is wrong to alias Chalkboard or Comic Sans MS if you're not sure Smonohand is very close both in looks and metrics. The reason being looks only are not sufficient, if the letters are different sizes documents written will one of the other fonts will end up repaginated with smonohand. Usually when we alias a font is much closer than just 'looks like it'

7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font,  63-64 should be fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt)

For a first try this is a nice package, you just need to spend some time reading the little documentation we have in fontpackages-devel and you'll be fine.

NEEDINFO till this submission progresses
Comment 5 Nicolas Mailhot 2009-10-01 17:56:53 EDT
8. and I forgot: please use the font package name as .spec name
Comment 6 Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-10-01 18:13:06 EDT
(In reply to comment #4)
> Thank you for submitting a new font package for review. I hope you'll find the
> process smooth and friendly, please do not hesitate to tell us what could be
> made better if something bugs you.
> 
> Anyway, for the review
> 
> 1. we use oflb as prefix for openfontlibrary fonts 
Ah, thanks. That's why yum search openfont did not find anything of interest

> 2. the author claims he created this font in fontforge, so it'd be a good idea
> to beg for the sfd file upstream and build the font from source in the rpm
I'll contact him and ask.

> 3. there is no licensing trace in the ttf file, and web pages are unfortunately
> not future proof. Please ask upstream to release the font in a zip file that
> includes a detached .txt licensing file (or at least use the fontforge button
> that embeds the OFL text in the .ttf)
Ditto.

> 4. IMHO this font should be classified as "fantasy" not "monospace" (see
> fontconfig-generics.txt in fontpackages-devel)

> 
> 5. Why do you reference Droid Sans Mono in your fontconfig file? If that's
> because you cut and pasted from the Droid file, you have clean and documented
> fontconfig templates in fontpackages-devel (in
Em. Guilty as charged. I recently installed it, so when looking for a reference spec, I looked there. Somehow I skipped over the notice at the top of the packaging page.

> /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/). The lastest rawhide version is probably the
> best reference for anything ≥ F11 (I'll probably push it to F11 if I stop
> finding things to improve every other week)
I'm on Rawhide, so that's good.

> 6. IMHO it is wrong to alias Chalkboard or Comic Sans MS if you're not sure
> Smonohand is very close both in looks and metrics. The reason being looks only
> are not sufficient, if the letters are different sizes documents written will
> one of the other fonts will end up repaginated with smonohand. Usually when we
> alias a font is much closer than just 'looks like it'
Ah, OK.

>
> 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font,  63-64 should be
> fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt)
Where's this file? I tried looking in fontpackages{,-devel} and fontconfig{,-devel}. I was trying to go for as low a priority as possible, since it looked that 50 is for a user override, and the number goes up from there.
 
> For a first try this is a nice package, you just need to spend some time
> reading the little documentation we have in fontpackages-devel and you'll be
> fine.
> 
Will do that and reupload an updated spec later today, thanks for the feedback!

Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a naming convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf
Comment 7 Nicolas Mailhot 2009-10-01 18:27:36 EDT
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #4)

> > 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font,  63-64 should be
> > fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt)
> Where's this file? I tried looking in fontpackages{,-devel} and
> fontconfig{,-devel}. 

/usr/share/fontconfig/templates/fontconfig-priorities.txt
fontpackages-devel

> Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a naming
> convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf  

Fontconfig does not care. I'd personnally remove the dalles_-_ stuff as it's junk added by the oflb upload process, but we have no hard convention one way or another

PS
meld or any other interactive diff tool is your friend to convert fontpackages-devel templates in actual spec/fontconfig files
Comment 8 Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-10-01 18:42:33 EDT
(In reply to comment #6)
> > 2. the author claims he created this font in fontforge, so it'd be a good idea
> > to beg for the sfd file upstream and build the font from source in the rpm
> I'll contact him and ask.
> 
> > 3. there is no licensing trace in the ttf file, and web pages are unfortunately
> > not future proof. Please ask upstream to release the font in a zip file that
> > includes a detached .txt licensing file (or at least use the fontforge button
> > that embeds the OFL text in the .ttf)
> Ditto.

OFLB's web contact form is currently broken, so I'm not sure whether the message I sent actually got through or not. I'm checking on IRC to see if anyone could fix it.

> > 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font,  63-64 should be
> > fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt)
> Where's this file? I tried looking in fontpackages{,-devel} and
> fontconfig{,-devel}. I was trying to go for as low a priority as possible,
> since it looked that 50 is for a user override, and the number goes up from
> there.
Ignore my silliness here. I was typing fontpackage, not fontpackages, and grep swallowed the error.

> Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a naming
> convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf  

Also, presumably the suffix -fonts stays regardless of whether the package contains only one font or more.
Comment 9 Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-10-01 18:50:22 EDT
Updated SRPM:
http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/fonts/oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc12.src.rpm

This incorporates everything but the build-from-source/documentation issues, which is pending a response from upstream.
Comment 10 Nicolas Mailhot 2009-10-02 01:59:32 EDT
(In reply to comment #8)

> Also, presumably the suffix -fonts stays regardless of whether the package
> contains only one font or more.  

yes the suffix does not depend on the actual number of packaged files. That makes it safer if upstream adds a bold or italic later.
Comment 11 Nicolas Mailhot 2009-10-05 17:34:44 EDT
(In reply to comment #8)

> OFLB's web contact form is currently broken, so I'm not sure whether the
> message I sent actually got through or not. I'm checking on IRC to see if
> anyone could fix it.

The font metadata says the author is stefan.mueller at fgan.de

Anyway: you've fixed what you could, the rest depends on upstream, so I'll approve the package now. Please continue to ping upstream, and update this package when he answers.

⳧⳧⳧ APPROVED ⳧⳧⳧

You can now continue from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a

I hope the process was pleasant, and that it will inspire you to package
other fonts for Fedora. Please do not hesitate to suggest improvements to our
organisation on the fonts mailing list.

Thank you for your contribution to our font package pool.

⇒ REASSIGNING
Comment 12 Michel Alexandre Salim 2009-10-06 00:47:46 EDT
Yup, forgot to mention(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> 
> > OFLB's web contact form is currently broken, so I'm not sure whether the
> > message I sent actually got through or not. I'm checking on IRC to see if
> > anyone could fix it.
> 
> The font metadata says the author is stefan.mueller at fgan.de
Yup, forgot to mention that I did install fontforge, found the email, and emailed the author. Have not heard back from him yet.

> ⳧⳧⳧ APPROVED ⳧⳧⳧
Thanks!

> I hope the process was pleasant, and that it will inspire you to package
> other fonts for Fedora. Please do not hesitate to suggest improvements to our
> organisation on the fonts mailing list.
Oh, it was. Quite a model for other SIGs -- I'd have to borrow some of your pages for the Mono and GNUstep SIGs when I get the time.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: oflb-smonohand-fonts
Short Description: A handwritten monospace font
Owners: salimma
Branches: F-10 F-11 F-12 EL-4 EL-5
InitialCC: fonts-sig
Comment 13 Kevin Fenzi 2009-10-06 13:32:13 EDT
cvs done.
Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2009-10-06 16:28:45 EDT
oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc11
Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2009-10-06 16:28:50 EDT
oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc10
Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2009-10-08 23:35:50 EDT
oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update oflb-smonohand-fonts'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-10332
Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2009-10-08 23:44:17 EDT
oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update oflb-smonohand-fonts'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-10372
Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2009-10-20 20:43:51 EDT
oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2009-10-20 20:58:20 EDT
oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.