[Bug 2091282] Review Request: sfnt2woff-zopfli - Create WOFF files with Zopfli compression

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091282



--- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Thank you for the preliminary review!

> Comments:
> 1) Seems good to me. 
> 
> 2) The url http://people.mozilla.org/~jkew/woff/ seems not to be available.
> Code seems to be available at
> https://web.archive.org/web/20170630235618/https://people-mozilla.org/~jkew/
> woff/ as indicated at https://github.com/TheJessieKirk/sfnt2woff .

That’s true. That URL is from the following comment, excerpted from the
upstream license file:

> #   Sources in the top-level directory belong to, or are based on, the WOFF
> #   reference implementation originally published at
> #   http://people.mozilla.org/~jkew/woff/, and are distributed under the terms
> #   specified in the file LICENSE-WOFF (MPL 1.1/GPL 2.0/LGPL 2.1).

The URL is still a useful identifier for which software was forked and extended
to create this program even though the original upstream for the reference
implementation (packaged in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/woff) has
disappeared.

I’m not opposed to adding the archive.org and GitHub mirror links to a new spec
file comment for informational purposes, although I don’t believe there is any
requirement to have a working URL for software that I am mentioning but not
packaging.

> 3) Descriptions at
> https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/woff2/woff2-tools/ and
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/bionic/+package/woff-tools , indicate both
> compression and decompression executables are available, maybe the
> description could be updated to indicate this as the name of the package
> suggests only compression is possible, though decompression only seems to be
> to stdout.

That’s reasonable. The description is taken from this software’s upstream, but
I could add a sentence mentioning that there is a matching decompression
utility.

> 4) Fedora does not recommend packaging WOFF fonts
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/
> #_web_fonts
> 
> 5) WOFF2 https://www.w3.org/TR/WOFF2/ is available and may compress better.
> Some of the implementations listed at
> https://www.w3.org/Fonts/WG/WOFF2/Implementation.html have been packaged.

Note that no fonts are packaged here. Your comments are all correct, but I
don’t believe they affect this package. This tool is still useful for end-users
who have reasons to work with the obsolete WOFF format, and as a dependency for
other font creation and development tools with more general applicability. For
example, it is a dependency for https://github.com/theleagueof/fontship, which
is used for compiling certain open-source fonts from their design sources. It
would be really nice to package *that* in Fedora.

> 6) Should header files be in a devel package? See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages

Headers that are installed (i.e., because they are needed for linking against a
library offered by the package, or they constitute a header-only library
provided by the package) should be in a -devel package. There is no reason to
attempt to install non-API headers that are internal sources—only those that
are “public” headers used for developing with the packaged software. Since this
package only provides a pair of command-line tools without any sort of
accompanying API or library, it’s correct that no header files are installed.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2091282
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux