Hello, A few days ago I was fooling around with Unicode stuff and I noticed that the Symbola font had been updated upstream, but not in Fedora, so I decided to have a go at repackaging it and submitting the spec file to the maintainer. Turns out it was more "fun" than I thought it would be. 1. There are now 2 fonts, the usual Symbola.ttf plus another one, Symbola_hint.ttf, which includes hinting instructions. I had a really hard time trying to find differences between the two, and my understanding is that at least GNOME handles font hinting on a number of levels, so at least GNOME would not benefit from the inclusion of the second font. Is that also the case for the other DEs? If we are to ship both fonts, should we include AppData and fontconfig files for both of them? What would the content of each file be, given that the font name would be common (ttname reports the same metadata for both)? 2. The original spec file makes use of the %_font_pkg macro, which is not that well documented. I came across a number of old mailing list posts (here and in SuSE) that advised against using it. I checked the spec files for other fonts, some were using it, others were not. What is considered best practice here? 3. What was packaged as documentation (Symbola.pdf) is actually a sample and is now taken out of the source zip, but it is still hosted on the creator's website. There is a documentation file in MS Word XML format. Is it acceptable to run it through a filter during prep to turn it into a LibreOffice or PDF file? There is also an html file with sample text, supposedly to help the user decide on which of the two fonts to use (with hinting or whithout). Again, I could not tell them apart. Should that file be included as well? (In case I wasn't clear, the upstream source package contains 4 files: Symbola.ttf, Symbola_hint.ttf, Symbola.docx and Symbola.htm) When I submitted the spec file in bugzilla (#1197402), another user pointed out that the maintainer, Robin Sonefors, aka ozamosi <ozamosi@xxxxxxxxxxx> has not responded to previous requests for an update (bug #1131000). fedora-active-user reports: Last login in FAS: ozamosi 2013-08-15 Last action on koji: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 package list entry revoked: gdouros-symbola-fonts in f21-Beta by ausil Last package update on bodhi: No activity found on bodhi Last actions performed according to fedmsg: - ozamosi updated their irc filters on 2015-02-12 22:34:58 - ozamosi updated their irc filters on 2015-02-12 22:34:56 - ozamosi updated their irc filters on 2015-02-12 22:34:54 - ozamosi updated their email filters on 2015-02-12 22:34:54 - ozamosi updated their email filters on 2015-02-12 22:34:52 - ozamosi updated their email filters on 2015-02-12 22:34:50 Given that bug 1131000 is over seven months old, should we proceed with the non-responsive maintainer process starting with the request for contact info, or should we file a new bug and escalate from there? -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
