|
On 2021-10-21 02:01, Michael J Gruber
wrote:
Have you managed to get this to work, or what is the particular issue? Seeing "%fontmeta" in there reminds me of the unbreaking which I did back then for adf-accanthis-fonts. The upshot was that a packager suggested new font packaging macros which required a change in rpm (or base macros, don't remember), moved some font packages to the new macros and then rage-quit when the rpm changes were not accepted, leaving some font packages in a state of FTBFS. I unbroke the package above by undoing some changes, (maybe unnecessarily) removing %fontmeta, undong some %expand-magic and adding back "-a" to a few calls. I would hope that the current template leads to a working font spec for a simple font, but the templates might be from that mentioned phase, and I haven't checked whether the rpm side ever got changed. Maybe take this to font SIG? _______________________________________________ Not yet. I haven't got the time to fully work the spec file. Trying to
generate a font specfile for testing purpose from rpmdev-newspec
failed due to missing template even tough I will post on fonts mailing list and see what they will say. -- Luya Tshimbalanga Fedora Design Team Fedora Design Suite maintainer |
_______________________________________________ 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
