Le Sam 29 septembre 2012 05:06, Matthew Miller a écrit : > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 04:37:33PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: >> > I could require some specific font, but that seems wrong. >> (Particularly >> > since if a "better" match for latin or common happen to be installed, >> > whatever I said is a requirement will actually be irrelevant.) >> > Orrr, should I just not worry about this case? >> Generally, if you want to run graphical apps, install the @fonts group - >> this gives you the preferred default fonts for all of the languages we >> support. > > So from a packaging point of view, don't worry that the package plus all > of > its dependencies installed doesn't really function? The Fedora default font set is provided by the @fonts group. So if you install anything that needs fonts, you should have this group in your kickstart. Not different than any other basic needs group which is not explicitly required by packages. And there is no simpler way to name a fonts-providing groups than fonts. If you feel i18n was over-enthusiastic with @fonts, you are free to specify explicitly the fonts you need or use a generic provide such as font(:lang=sw). The generic provides are pretty basic because fonts would really need n-uplet provides, but rpm only understands single tokens. Because we do no use hard dependencies, font selection can be customized as needed (you are free to shot yourself in the foot). Given how widespread font use is and how varied font selection criteria are I doubt you could find a dependency system that would be even remotely satisfying to users. Not to mention that fonts overlap in strange an non-intuitive ways (and never completely), and any attempt would bloat yum indexes a lot. Of course it was all way simpler in ASCII bitmap times. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
