New font packaging guidelines

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le lundi 22 décembre 2008 à 15:08 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
> Le lundi 22 décembre 2008 à 14:56 +0200, Sarantis Paskalis a écrit :
> > On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 05:13:35PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> 
> Hi Sarantis,

> 6. However, for fonts that are bundled in a software package with no
> other form of release, or fonts which have some additional non-standard
> stuff bundled with them (such as TEX packages), I don't think anyone
> will complain too loudly if you package them as subpackage(s) of your
> main package. As long as the subpackage(s) are clean,
> guidelines-compliant, and can be used by Fedora users without dragging
> with them your app or TEX or other non-general-purpose stuff.
> 
> For example, for a “tex-foo” TEX package, you could have:
> 
> tex-foo-fonts-fontname1 (normal font subpackage #1)
> tex-foo-fonts-fontname2 (normal font subpackage #2)
> […]
> tex-foo-fonts-common    (common font subpackage that owns the fonts dirs
>                          and the fonts-licensing files²)
> tex-foo                 (main TEX package that depends on the
>                          tex-foo-fonts packages, includes symlinks to
>                          the font files in standard locations and
>                          other TEX stuff)
> 
> The subpackaging logic is pretty much the same as in the
> spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec template included in fontpackages-devel
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts

Also, I'm pretty sure the other TEX packagers would be delighted if
someone documented this stuff from the TEX POW.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20081222/8afc6193/attachment.sig>