Q: fedora-review, fonts and %_font_pkg

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


There is a bug for fedora review [1] to add some basic support for font packages. It shouldn't be that hard, but time is limited.

One concern is that font specfiles are hard to parse because of the %_font_pkg macro. The problem is that it "hides" the %files directive which is what we use to locate the section (that we have to parse ourselves instead of using rpm's parser is a long story).

Now, anything is possible. But according to the discussion in [2], fpc nowadays seems very firm about that macros should not include any section parts like %files, so %_font_pkg should most likely not have been approved as-is today (?)

So: should the situation be rectified to comply with fpc's view, probably with a new macro not including %files + deprecating %_font_pkg? Not only for fedora-review (which will have to handle %_font_pkg anyway), but for consistency?


[1] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ticket/215
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/194
fonts mailing list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Font Configuration]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux