[Bug 454148] Review Request: monafont - Japanese font for text arts

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: monafont - Japanese font for text arts


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454148





------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net  2008-07-06 10:48 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)

> For 1:
> I did not know the wiki package, however as far as I check the wiki pacakage
> it seems fine.

I don't see any wiki page on mona in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:In-progress_fonts
so you're definitely missing some steps in the fonts packaging workflow. Please
check. Those pages were not written for no reason.

> For 2:
> Perhaps I've read them

Can't answer for you.

> For 3:
> 3-1: Some fedora contributor says that unless umask is set correctly fc-cache
> creates font cache in a wrong permission: ref:
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2007-March/msg00151.html

I didn't know this link but in any case that's a lot of maybes and since almost
all our fonts do not use umask (and have been so for a long time) I doubt there
is any problem in real life.

> For example, fonts-japanese package has umask scriptlet.

This was a mistake of the fonts-japanese packager. Silently changing one package
when the same pattern is repeated in many others is wrong.

> I don't know if this issue has been correctly fixed.

If this issue is real it needs to be addressed by guideline changes so every
packager (not just the ones aware of this mail post) can fix his packages. In
the meanwhile adding umasks not in the guidelines only adds to the confusion. Thus:
— please remove umasks from your packages
— please submit a guideline change proposal to FPC arguing the need for umask,
so the issue can be discussed properly. If FPC deems the umask necessary we'll
change all packages including yours.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee

> 3-2: %defattr(0644,-,-,0755) = %defattr(-,root,root,-) and actually I don't think
> fonts packages must write a explicit umask values which differs from gerenal
> packaging guidelines. Are there any rationale?

The defattr mask for font packages has been approved by FPC and FESCO with the
font spec template. Official page there
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsSpecTemplate
(unfortunately broken by recent mediawiki migration, the page I gave you is a
cleaned-up unofficial version).

FPC has generally avoided making statements on defattrs, because they can become
quite complex. It has let packagers exercise their good judgement on umasks or
not. However in the fonts case a correct deffatr is really simple which is why
the fonts guidelines include one (you can probably fish the IRC FPC minutes on
the subject if you care to).

> 5-AB: Will fix
> 5-C: Very intentional. Actually I don't want to have this rpm _automatically_ find
> the version.

Ok, good enough for me

> 6. Calling mkfontdir on scriptlet pulls X dependent packages, which is _banned_
>    on current Fedora packaging:

Ok, right, I was not thinking. The actual rule on this is
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_packaging_policy#Install-time_dependencies

BTW. I didn't think and didn't have any core fonts packaging guidelines to draw
on. Please write some.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.