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 |fonts-rpm-templates is already installed.
|
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
