On 2013-04-23 16:17, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 03:37:03PM +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
In a large package (openerp7) I have found some bundled .ttf and
.otf font files. One of these (Inconsolata) seems to exist in Fedora
as levien-inconsolata-fonts, the others (see below) I cannot find
with a quick search.
The fonts are parts of specific addons (a. k. a. plugins). They are
referenced with explicit paths in various .css or css/* files.
The entypo-webfont.ttf seems to have a working upstream
http://www.entypo.com.
I cannot find an upstream for mnmliconsv21-webfont.ttf, hint is that
it's generated by "Font Squirrel" ?!
There seem to be an upstream for zocial-regular-webfont.ttf, at
https://github.com/adamstac/zocial, providing a woff file.
Now, what should I do with these? Packaging GL tells me to "avoid"
bundling ttf/otf files. What's this in this case?
Utterly confused. Any hint, out there?
We had a similar problem with a package a few weeks ago:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-April/009046.html
The first thing to work out: Does simply deleting the font file(s)
make any difference to the documentation / package? In our case, the
packager could simply delete the file [in %install] and it appeared to
make absolutely no difference to the rendered HTML documentation, thus
problem solved :-)
Rich.
Thanks for reply.... I'm tempted, but here is a test problem. This is
about real webpages, and to be frank I'm not quite sure how to test
thoroughly. Just removing feels like it could introduce bugs I will not
catch. And maintenance would be a problem...
Digging deeper, I find that all references seem to be part of @font-face
definitions like
@font-face{
...
src: url('zocial-regular-webfont.eot');
src: url('zocial-regular-webfont.eot?#iefix')
format('embedded-opentype'),
url('zocial-regular-webfont.woff') format('woff'),
url('zocial-regular-webfont.ttf') format('truetype'),
url('zocial-regular-webfont.svg#ZocialRegular')
format('svg');
...}
So one question would be what happens in such a definition if none of
the src: elements are found.
But even if it would be possible to use a fallback for some fonts,
things like entypo-webfont really can't be substituted: it's a symbol
font with pictograms, not likely to be replaceable. Seems that
zocial-regular-webfont and mnmlicons are the same kind.
Reading Nicholas's reply to "your" thread I get the impression that the
browser would download these fonts if they are not installed on the
machine running to browser. Ergo:
- At least some fonts are not replaceable
- The web page must be able to provide the font to the client if
requested.
Does the GL general bundling exception for "javascript intended to be
served to a web browser" cover this? In that case, this might be solved,
I guess.
Otherwise, is there any way to avoid the need to package these fonts
(for those with an upstream) and patch the css paths? The latter part
seem problematic to me since the complete filesystem isn't really
available in the webserver context. Or is it? (i. e., can a web
application for sure use a resource under /usr/share?)
Still confused, but on a higher level.
--alec
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
