DevHeads.net

Postings by Nicolas Mailhot

Fonts packaging macros rework early peek

Hi,

To all that may concern (mainly, packagers of things that include font
files).

I’m currently reworking the font automation I created for Fedora 10
years ago.

Default rpm macro packaging layout and conventions

Hi,

I'd like Fedora and FPC in general to agree to a general layout for
macros and their associated material like templates, so the next step
can focus on the actual macros and their documentation, and not on how
the result is shipped to users.

<a href="https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/813" title="https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/813">https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/813</a>

The reason being I'm currently wrapping up three sets of rpm macros for
Fedora⁰.

Dynamic BuildRequires

Hi,

Following some long discussions on rpm's and mock issue tracker¹, I
wrote the following to permit using BuildRequires, computed from the
content of the packaged archive:

<a href="https://github.com/nim-nim/mock-install" title="https://github.com/nim-nim/mock-install">https://github.com/nim-nim/mock-install</a>
<a href="https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/mock-install/" title="https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/mock-install/">https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/mock-install/</a>
<a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629371" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629371">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1629371</a>

A review would be appreciated

Usage is pretty simple:

%<--
BuildRequires: mock-install
[…]

%prep
[…] # Do something to compute yourbr1 … yourbrX
mock-install yourbr1 … yourbrX
%<--

I intend to integrate it in the next version of Fedora Go packaging
macros.

rng-tools rawhide alert

Hi,

Just a warning for those like me that had activated rngd in the hope
Fedora could someday make some use of the tpm sucking electricity on their
mobo. In rawhide, instead of barfing a few error messages at boot
complaining about tpm init errors, kernel/systemd/udev/whatever loops on
the error message. As a result your /var/log partition will fill up faster
than you can blink. (and if your logs are on / lots of innocent bystanders
will be harmed)

Regards,

Re: Software Management call for RFEs

Hi,

Please clean up the distaster package verification is.

rpm -Va is so incomplete it spawned rpmlint, package-cleanup and not doubt
others I forget about.

Even for the most basic checks its output is so useless and difficul to
parse we've seen a critical path package like gdm shipped with the wrong
file permissions without anyone noticing.

All those utilities need unification and the output format some serious
re-design so old and new packagers can be directed to a single tool that
does not need pages of explanations before its results can be exploited.

Regards,

Heads up: Droid fonts update in Rawhide

Hi,

I've just pushed new Droid font packages to Fedora Rawhide.
<a href="http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=330644" title="http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=330644">http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=330644</a>

Droid are complex font families with a difficult upstream and the
following caveats apply:

A. I used a few hundred MiBs of Android git checkout as source.

Heads up: STIX fonts update in Rawhide

Hi,

After some time procrastinating I've finally bumped STIX fonts to 1.1.0 in
Rawhide.

This is a major update (1 years and a half work upstream IIRC)

Gone is the huge pile of files only TEX macros could beat some sense in,
the new font layout finally approaches sanity. The cons being that if
you've used the old font names in documents, you're in trouble.

STIX fonts updates

Hi,

After some procrastination time I've bumped STIX fonts to 1.1 in Rawhide.

This is a major release (1 year and a half work upstream IIRC)

The font layout and naming has been changed to something approaching
sanity, and the complexfont piles only TEX ma

New licence for STIX fonts: OFL (was STIX licence)

Dear all,

As requested by many during the STIX fonts beta review phase, the STIX
Fonts project changed its licence to the OFL (was using a custom
one-of-a-kind licence initially). The change is effective in the STIX
fonts 1.0.0 release, which has been pushed in Fedora today:
<a href="http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=186404" title="http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=186404">http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=186404</a>

This should be fine as the OFL is Fedora's preferred font licence (with
the GPL, provided the standard font exception is not missing)
<a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Preferred_License" title="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Preferred_License">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Preferred_L...</a>

Best regards,

New licence for ParaType PT Sans: OFL (was PTFL)

Dear all,

At the request of various free/libre OSS organisations, ParaType has
agreed to release the PT Sans font under the OFL in addition to its
one-of-a-kind custom font licence.

New licence for Yanone Kaffeesatz: OFL (was CC-BY)

Hi,

At the request of the Google Font Directory
(<a href="http://code.google.com/webfonts" title="http://code.google.com/webfonts">http://code.google.com/webfonts</a>) Yanone Kaffeesatz licence changed to
OFL (was CC-BY). The new version has been pushed in Fedora:
<a href="http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=186370" title="http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=186370">http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=186370</a>

This should be fine as the OFL is Fedora's preferred font licence (with
the GPL, provided the standard font exception is not missing)
<a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Preferred_License" title="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Preferred_License">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Preferred_L...</a>

Regards,

Font audit results for Fedora 12 and 2009-11-22 fedora-devel

Hi,

With a little delay here are the font audit results for Fedora 12 and
2009-11-22 fedora-devel. I think I've taken into account all the
feedback I received since last run.

Identifying remaining core font users

Hi,

It has been plain since 2003¹ our new font access standard would be
fontconfig. Since then most users of the old core fonts X11 backend have
migrated, but there are still a few stragglers.

Unfortunately these stragglers matter. Core fonts were not good in 2003,
and they didn't get any better since. Few users means life-support
maintenance only, no one to replace/fix core fonts when a technical or
legal problem causes them to be dropped, no one to update them when
encoding standards change.

Rawhide fonts problem report for 2009-09-29

Hi,

By popular request I rewrote the test suite output module to make it easier to find
which packages have a problem. Here is the result¹. Hope I didn't break any test
during the rewrite

I've also attached a short data extract and the diff with Fedora 11 (no updates)
results.

Rawhide fonts problem report for 2009-09-26

Well, it's a bit early for a new report, but I had to do a run to
sanity-check fontpackages-1.24 before releasing it, and we're nearing
Fedora 12 Beta Freeze, so it's both convenient and (hopefully) useful to
do it now.

This report was generated by repo-font-audit from fontpackages-devel 1.24
(which should hit rawhide now).

Rawhide fonts problem report for 2009-09-06

– packages that declare font metadata:

⇒ 902 files (149 MiB) in 84 packages (96 MiB) generated from 53 source
packages.

Format Files rpm srpm Files (MiB) rpm (MiB)
CFF 115 46 34 7 7
PCF 204 6 6 32 48
TrueType 12 9 8 65 28
Type 1 234 24 7 13 12

Format Files rpm srpm Files (MiB) rpm (MiB)
noarch 845 74 50 146 94
x86_64 57 10 3 2 1

☛ File size is computed as extracted, while rpm is a compressed format.

Rawhide fonts problem report for 2009-07-20

Statistics:

– packages that declare font metadata:

⇒ 1287 files (327 MiB) in 276 packages (204 MiB) generated from 119 source packages.

Format Files rpm srpm Files (MiB) rpm (MiB)
CFF 115 46 34 7 8
PCF 204 6 6 32 52
TrueType 400 203 76 243 130
Type 1 231 22 6 13 13

Format Files rpm srpm Files (MiB) rpm (MiB)
noarch 1230 266 115 324 202
x86_64 57 10 4 2 1

☛ File size is computed as extracted, while rpm is a compre

The fonts SIG irregular status report: Fedora 11 state

Welcome to a new edition of the irregular Fedora fonts SIG status
report. This time I'll detail the situation at Fedora 11 (Leonidas)
release time¹.

◾◾◾ Contents

1. Fedora 11 cycle highlights:
– font auto-installation
— new font packaging guidelines
— mass font repackaging

2. What worked and didn't work

3. How to make better future releases

4. Packaging statistics:
— highlights
– Fedora 11 statistics
— Fedora 10 statistics

5. Current Rawhide statistics and problem report
*NOT* limited to pure font packages.

Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)

Hi,

If you've received this message directly (not via a list) you're
concerned by the font package changes proposed for Fedora 11:
— the changes touch one of your packages or
— the changes touch/need one component you're lead on (comps, packagedb,
rpm…)

Please reply to the fedora fonts list however to keep the discussion in
a single place.

The complete list of proposed changes is published there
<a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes" title="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes</a>

All is open to discussion, and it's on a wiki page, so don't hesitate to
complete/correct it.

This list is pretty ambitious and

The fonts SIG irregular status report

Hi all,

I haven't been too active on the SIG lately for lack of free time.
However others (who rock) have been busy working on fonts packages, so
here is a long delayed status update that will try to clear the backlog:

▪▪ General status

— We have 56 entries in the wishlist. Even counting entries the packager
forgot to recategorize (grrr) I think the wishlist is still growing
faster than we package fonts.