Hello everyone, I am the new maintainer of the gdouros-* fonts [1]. When I took over the fonts, I was not aware of repo-font-audit (shame on me) and it was the only check I hadn't run, but these days I had been working on adding some more fonts from Mr. Douros and I stumbled upon the right wiki pages, so I went along. For quite some time, a lot of distros ship the Alexander font, but not the closely related Anaktoria, Aroania and Asea (this one comes in Regular, Bold, Italic and Bold Italic), which I want to include. I wrote up all the necessary files based on the ones I had prepared for Alexander and made the packages [2],[3],[4]. Two local builds on f21 and f22 were successful, rpmlint only whined about what it thought were typos and I went on to submit to koji scratch builds for rawhide, which were also successful. And then I fed them to repo-font-audit. That gave me an error (fonts in packages that contain non-font data), a warning (fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks) and a suggestion (fonts with partial unicode block coverage). I have uploaded the full test results at [5]. Seeing that I could not do anything for the warning and the suggestion, I tried to figure out what was the cause of the error, but I did not reach any solid conclusion. What is the problem? Is it the %doc part of the file, the metadata/fontconfig files or all of them together? That got me worried so, I decided to run a check against the other gdouros fonts [6]. Of the seven fonts, repo-font-audit managed to check only three of them as it threw some error messages as soon as it started [7]. I looked around for the same errors and I found only a bug report in cpan.org [8] about ttfcoverage trying to divide by zero. It was closed as irrelevant. Should I file a bug report for that? For the other three fonts it managed to check, I got the exact same error, warning and suggestion... Puzzled as I was, I decided to check the liberation and the droid fonts and to my surprise, repo-font-audit spat out the following: P# t3 t10 t13 t17 t20 1 ‧ 2 ‧ 2 ‧ 2 15 15 ‧ 15 6 3 ‧ 1 ‧ 1 1 4 6 6 ‧ 6 4 5 ‧ 4 ‧ 4 ‧ 6 ‧ 4 4 4 ‧ 7 ‧ 4 ‧ 4 ‧ 8 ‧ 4 ‧ 4 ‧ Total 21 40 4 40 11 Among the above errors, warnings and suggestions are the three ones that I kept getting. So, is repo-font-audit an absolutely necessary part of the font package creation process, or is it more of an advisory tool and we can get by with just the other checks performed by fedora-review? Are the fontlint sanity checks from [5] worth taking upstream? And on a slightly different topic, is it absolutely required to create a wiki page for a font package, before it is accepted for inclusion? Thank you for your time Alex ------ 1. http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/ 2. https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-anaktoria-fonts/ 3. https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-aroania-fonts/ 4. https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/gdouros-asea-fonts/ 5. https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/logs/repo-font-audit-testrepo-20150528T220632Z.tar.xz 6. https://alexpl.fedorapeople.org/packages/fonts/gdouros/logs/repo-font-audit-testrepo-20150528T220350Z.tar.xz 7. http://fpaste.org/226740/ 8. https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=85014 _______________________________________________ fonts mailing list fonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/
