Re: urw-fonts: Versioning Mess

["David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]" <dkaspar@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I also found this:
http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=urw-core35-fonts.git;a=summary
and they're called urw-core35-fonts here. It might be wise to ask
upstream to clarify before choosing the new package name.

​OK, will do.​

I'm not sure where your Version == 1.0 comes from. If they're versioned
only by date now, then you have two options. Use Version: 0 in the new
package in anticipation of upstream eventually reintroducing semantic
versioning. Or, Version: YYYYMMDD. Admittedly, the latter looks nicer
and upstream already said they'll stick to it.

​The Version == 1.0 comes from the source code of the fonts themselves.​ Running 'grep "Version" *.afm' tells me that there are all files with Version == 1.0, except two of them (which have Version

​ 

If you worry about upstream versioning sanity, then stick with
Version: 0
and follow the snapshot versioning guidelines.

> There's also one more option, and that is to base the package on upstream's
> git repository and the snapshot scheme, because we would be using snapshot
> string in the package name anyway. And it would also solve one more issue
> that upstream is not shipping license files in the archive. (I have already
> contacted to correct this.)

The exact location of the source doesn't matter too much as long as it's
official and pristine. I agree it might be better to use the git repo
directly since it contains both the licence indication and its full
text.

​Upstream has heard to my request and fixed it. (http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697390)​

​And yes, what Douhlas wrote is correct ​(about the 35 fonts), and I will have that noted in the %description section.

Anyway, since determining the Version field is still unclear, I think the most sense to me right now is to proceed with option 2) - IOW - to bypass the versioning from URW++ completely, and have Version field based on snapshot string, in a way:

X.Y.Z == YYYY.MM.DD

Or do you some problem with this approach?

Thanks! :)

​​

David Kaspar [Dee'Kej]
Associate Software Engineer
Brno, Czech Republic

RED HAT | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED.
Every airline in the Fortune 500 relies on Red Hat.
Find out why at Trusted | Red Hat.​

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx