On 8/2/21 2:35 PM, Jerry James wrote:
In the review of python-pydata-sphinx-theme
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1981997), the
fact that our FontAwesome font packages are on version 4.x came up.
That new package needs version 5.x. I tried to make it work with 4.x
... no luck.
I do not want to take over the existing fontawesome-fonts package, nor
do I want to be involved in porting anything from version 4.x to
version 5.x. I am willing, however, to maintain a
parallel-installable version 5.x of the fonts, so that applications
can migrate on their own schedules (with an eye to eventually
deprecating and/or removing the existing package).
Thanks for doing this!
4 and 5 (and 6) are not backward compatible. Glyphs are missing,
replaced, changed codepoints, etc... Not all things could be ported and
I don't believe we'll ever get rid of 4.
Good thing is that _some_ of the packages with `Requires:
fontawesome-fonts` already require v5 and work with v4 only partially.
Not so good thing is that someone need to go through about 30 packages
and update dependencies to `font(fontawesome)` and
`font(fontawesome5free)`. I started looking at the packages last month,
but got distracted with work and never finished. Can return to that in a
couple of weeks.
I have filed a review request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1989300
It uses the name fontawesome-free-fonts for two reasons:
- To be different from the existing package name for parallel
installability; and
- To distinguish the Fedora package from the Pro version of the fonts.
One potentially confusing thing is that FA5 consists of two fonts: Font
Awesome 5 Free and Font Awesome 5 Brands. fa-free-fonts could be
interpreted as containing only the former one.
Another is the whole parallel-installable thing and a need to guess
which package is 4 or 5 (and 6 in a not-so-distant future).
I'd suggest fontawesome5-fonts, or at least something with explicit
version in the package name.
I have two misgivings about this package and would appreciate some
input from the community on these points.
1. Does the name rationale make sense?
2. Do we actually need the web subpackage? The font guidelines say
NOT to package svg, woff, etc. versions of a font because modern
browsers can read the otf versions. On the other hand, the web
subpackage also contains JavaScript versions of the fonts (which
cannot be built from source using only Fedora packages, alas!). On
the gripping hand, the existing package has a web subpackage, and it
seems to be used (by 8 packages).
Thanks!
--
With best regards,
Aleksei Bavshin
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
