On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Le dimanche 18 juillet 2010 à 12:49 +0200, Hans de Goede a écrit : >> Hi, >> >> On 07/18/2010 12:06 PM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > 2010/7/18 Hans de Goede<hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> >>> I think those packages whose spec's need to be re-written should block >> >>> F14Target and volunteer's are welcome to post patches/fix them. >> >>> Recently I come across few packages which need to follow current fonts >> >>> packaging guidelines. I start working on those but found >> >>> openfontlibrary.org is almost broken and for those fonts it is >> >>> upstream. I am now searching those fonts if have some other publisher. >> >>> If i will find any other foundry then will use and import it in Fedora >> >>> otherwise my suggestion will be to retire those packages whose >> >>> upstream are gone now. >> >> >> >> Unless I read the thread wrong openfontlibrary.org will return. Also I see >> >> no reason to drop packages just because there upstream is gone. >> > Current fonts guidelines asks for using foundry name in font >> > package. If based on initial import where upstream URL is no longer >> > exists but its allowed to use that and use oflb as foundry name then I >> > am more willing to work on it. > > Sure, there's no need to change it, unless the author permanently moved > to something else. > >> Ok, so this is about the rule of having a foundry name in the font package >> name. I think that it is fine to keep using oflb as foundry name for fonts >> which were initially packaged as such. Esp as the openfontlibrary.org site >> will return to normal operations in some time AFAIK. > > The OFLB soerely needs some stability, but it's very young yet, so :( > >> > Please tell me if this is ok. If you think its ok I will submit >> > new, to be renamed packages for package review. >> > If this is not ok then let those bugs be open forever..... >> > >> >> I don't think that the fonts need to be renamed again and again and again, >> lets just pick a name and stick with it. Note that I'm not really a font guy >> though. > > Changing hosting is work so most fonts have stable homes. One just needs > to be careful to identify the canonical one the first time a font is > packaged (some have dozens of secondary web sites) > Thanks all for allowing to submit new packages with dead oflb source URL. I have used oflb foundry for those 5 packages[1]. I have also added the same as comment in spec and also mentioned that "no FTBFS bugs for this package please". As usual, can anyone please help to review those packages? Hope someone will help to fix long time pending blocker:F11-new-font-rules(rh#477044). I also like to mention this is my voluntary work to fix Jon Stanely's packages. Regards, Parag. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=615847 to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=615851 _______________________________________________ fonts mailing list fonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/
