[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[Fedora-packaging] Re: [Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation



Le jeudi 25 octobre 2007 à 12:17 +1000, Jens Petersen a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot さんは書きました:
> > While the current spec template in the Fonts SIG wiki
> > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/SpecTemplate) only
> > documents common Fedora Fonts packaging practices, it's never been
> > formally approved.
> 
> Just a minor quibble, but I would rather %fontdir and %fontconfdir do 
> not end in '/'.

I have no strong feelings one way or another, existing rpm directoy
macros are somewhat unconsistent on this (buildroot is /-terminated,
other not), I've already changed it both ways several times, it's not
problem to change it again.

> One thing that is missing currently is the use of mkfontdir and ttmkfdir 
> (or mkfontscale) to generate fonts.dir and fonts.scale even for truetype 
> fonts.  When we split out various CJK fonts from the fonts-* packages 
> for F8 we moved that from %post to %install and keep fonts from 
> different packages in separate directories.  See for example sazanami-fonts.

I'll let packagers of those examples to complete the template. As long
as core fonts stuff is clearly marked optional (with a specific colour
and text explaining it should not be added to new font packages). 

When Vera was added to Fedora years ago the xorg maintainer and desktop
team strongly objected to adding new fonts to the legacy subsystem, and
my own experience is they were right — fonts that have been used a long
time with the core fonts backend tend to work, new fonts tend to expose
many bugs no one wants to fix anymore.

Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]