Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 174240
Summary: | Review Request: artwiz-aleczapka-fonts | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Dawid Gajownik <gajownik> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | gajownik | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
URL: | http://artwizaleczapka.sourceforge.net/ | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2005-12-31 15:05:06 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||
Bug Blocks: | 163779, 174219 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Andreas Bierfert
2005-11-26 11:13:01 UTC
Hi! Do you need to generate fonts from *.bdf files? Maybe it would be better to use artwiz-aleczapka-{de,en,se}-1.3.tar.bz2 tarballs? Shouldn't `fc-cache' be run in %post{,un} section like in dejavu-fonts? http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/*checkout*/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel/dejavu-fonts.spec?root=extras What do you think about changing package name to artwiz-aleczapka-fonts to keep the name consistent with other fonts RPMs from Extras? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165900#c6 Hm, I think you we want the source files but since I do not know anything about fonts ^^ I might be wrong. If fc-cache should be run or not is a good question... now it is run for each subdir so in a pretty much closed env. I don't know weather it should also be run from %{_datadir}/fonts to allow for integration... could someone elaborate on how this works and point out diffs between FC{3,4,5}? -font would be fine by me so... Ok here you go: added fc-cache to post and require it (so we don't need the if's like in dejavu) and changed the name... Before it pops up: The ghost stuff is not needed because I build them in a different way so that the files get included automatically: http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/artwiz-aleczapka-fonts-1.3-2.src.rpm http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/artwiz-aleczapka-fonts.spec Ping? (In reply to comment #4) > Ping? Uhm, sorry that it took me so long. I was ill a bit and after that I had a lot of duties. Sleeping 4-6 hours per day I was trying to catch up on my work. I thought that someone more knowledgeable could make a review in the meantime. (In reply to comment #2) > Hm, I think you we want the source files It depends. Some *-fonts packages use pregenerated fonts. Of course, it's nothing wrong in providing source files in src.rpm ;-] > I don't know weather it should also be run from %{_datadir}/fonts to allow for > integration... Without it fonts won't be visible in the system. In your fluxbox package you were adding these directories by modifying /etc/fonts/local.conf. Here you only need to run fc-cache in that dir because %{_datadir}/fonts is already in /etc/fonts/local.conf. > and point out diffs between FC{3,4,5}? In FC5 there is additional fonts.cache-2 file. (In reply to comment #3) > Ok here you go: added fc-cache to post and require it (so we don't need the if's > like in dejavu) That's wrong. Please take a look at these links: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=165900#c1 http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-May/msg00887.html Here's the rest of review: - do not run fc-cache in %build section. It's a Bad Thing⢠â https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5176#c1 (Mike A. Harris is a maintainier of X.Org X11 in Fedora/RedHat) - do not include source files (*.bdf) in the final package - please preserve timestamps â http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Timestamps (I changed "mv" command to "install -p" I prepared a small patch. I have cleaned up a bit %prep section and installed fonts into %{_datadir}/fonts/artwiz-aleczapka directory (not artwiz-aleczapka-fonts). I'm also not shure whether â%{version}â part is necessary in %{buildroot}%{fontdir}/artwiz-aleczapka-{de,en,se}-%{version}. Oh, I also did not have time to struggle with documentation files. It needs some more work... BTW Merry Christmas :-) Created attachment 122576 [details]
patch to spec file.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year :) Sorry xmas was a little bit long this year and kept me from working my bugzilla tickets... here is a version with you patch applied and with the documentation included... http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/artwiz-aleczapka-fonts-1.3-2.src.rpm http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/artwiz-aleczapka-fonts.spec > Merry Christmas and Happy New Year :) Same to you :-) > Sorry xmas was a little bit long this year I wish it was a bit longer ;) > here is a version with you patch applied and with the documentation > included... Can you check the server? I cannot connect to it: "The connection was refused when attempting to contact fedora.lowlatency.de." Hm apache crashed ... damn debian ;) Should work now... You gave link to the old srpm. The correct one is http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/artwiz-aleczapka-fonts-1.3-3.src.rpm ;) - there is one rpmlint warning: [rpm-build@X ~]$ cd rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/ [rpm-build@X noarch]$ rpmlint artwiz-aleczapka-fonts-1.3-3.noarch.rpm W: artwiz-aleczapka-fonts no-version-in-last-changelog [rpm-build@X noarch]$ but it's not true ;-) - sources matches upstream - license: GPL APPROVED Thanks for the review :) imported and build for devel. Normalize summary field for easy parsing |