Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: monafont - Japanese font for text arts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454148 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-06 10:48 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > For 1: > I did not know the wiki package, however as far as I check the wiki pacakage > it seems fine. I don't see any wiki page on mona in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:In-progress_fonts so you're definitely missing some steps in the fonts packaging workflow. Please check. Those pages were not written for no reason. > For 2: > Perhaps I've read them Can't answer for you. > For 3: > 3-1: Some fedora contributor says that unless umask is set correctly fc-cache > creates font cache in a wrong permission: ref: > http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2007-March/msg00151.html I didn't know this link but in any case that's a lot of maybes and since almost all our fonts do not use umask (and have been so for a long time) I doubt there is any problem in real life. > For example, fonts-japanese package has umask scriptlet. This was a mistake of the fonts-japanese packager. Silently changing one package when the same pattern is repeated in many others is wrong. > I don't know if this issue has been correctly fixed. If this issue is real it needs to be addressed by guideline changes so every packager (not just the ones aware of this mail post) can fix his packages. In the meanwhile adding umasks not in the guidelines only adds to the confusion. Thus: — please remove umasks from your packages — please submit a guideline change proposal to FPC arguing the need for umask, so the issue can be discussed properly. If FPC deems the umask necessary we'll change all packages including yours. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Committee > 3-2: %defattr(0644,-,-,0755) = %defattr(-,root,root,-) and actually I don't > think > fonts packages must write a explicit umask values which differs from gerenal > packaging guidelines. Are there any rationale? The defattr mask for font packages has been approved by FPC and FESCO with the font spec template. Official page there http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsSpecTemplate (unfortunately broken by recent mediawiki migration, the page I gave you is a cleaned-up unofficial version). FPC has generally avoided making statements on defattrs, because they can become quite complex. It has let packagers exercise their good judgement on umasks or not. However in the fonts case a correct deffatr is really simple which is why the fonts guidelines include one (you can probably fish the IRC FPC minutes on the subject if you care to). > 5-AB: Will fix > 5-C: Very intentional. Actually I don't want to have this rpm _automatically_ > find > the version. Ok, good enough for me > 6. Calling mkfontdir on scriptlet pulls X dependent packages, which is > _banned_ > on current Fedora packaging: Ok, right, I was not thinking. The actual rule on this is http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_packaging_policy#Install-time_dependencies BTW. I didn't think and didn't have any core fonts packaging guidelines to draw on. Please write some. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review