Re: <DKIM> Issues with repo-font-audit

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


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 [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

Thank you for taking the time to clear things up.

Best Regards,
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