On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > You can pass those upstream, it does not necessarily use the same tools as > us. Fedora tests often catch things upstream is not aware of (mostly, > fontconfig coverage or you-only-need-two-more-glyphs to fulfill xx > locale). I'll collect the results from every font we already have plus the ones I intend to package and I'll send them upstream. Hopefully he'll know what to do with them. >> 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? > > At a guess that's the new xml metadata that didn't exist when the scripts > were written. Try without it and if it passes someone needs to write a > patch to repo-font-audit to whitelist it > > (the reason the test exists is that lots of packages used to hide fonts in > private directories, so other apps did not seen them, users complained of > lack of fonts, and packagers forgot to check the licensing of those > files). > >> 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? > > Yes, it's a bug in ttfcoverage (it should not crash), but likely in the > font too (unfortunately TEX fonts sometimes contain terrible warts TEX > users workaround in macros, but they still need fixing for use in other > apps and in modern TEX engines that behave more and more like normal apps > on the font side). So that means two bug reports against repo-font-audit, one concerning metadata files and the other one for ttfcoverage. >> 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? > > It's not a lot of work (mostly cut & pasting + some table filling), and > that gives you a central place to check font state in Fedora instead of > trawling repos and mailing lists to find out which fonts are in and what > people would like to see packaged. Can I bother you when I get around to editing the relevant wiki pages? I'm not that confident I can provide all the information that is requested. Thank you for taking the time to clear things up. Best Regards, Alex _______________________________________________ fonts mailing list fonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/
