Re: Converting montserrat spec to new version
On 2021-10-31 10:14, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 5:37 PM Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: On 2021-10-21 02:01, Michael J Gruber wrote: Have you managed to get this to work, or what is the particular issue? Fonts SIG helped resolve the issue. You can view the updated spec files below: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/julietaula-montserrat-fonts/blob/rawhide/f/julietaula-montserrat-fonts.spec I'm not sure if this is a problem (or will be a problem at some point) ... After this update, two subpackages that are no longer part of this package are remaining on the system, and only removed when running "dnf autoremove" manually: - julietaula-montserrat-base-web-fonts - julietaula-montserrat-fonts-common Are they really no longer required by anything, and those files no longer provided by any subpackage? Then these two should be obsoleted by one of the remaining font subpackages. Only fedora-logos-https required these subpackages which is no longer the case. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-logos/c/2fef53b9705afc7539a0556fa9b2577adca1e29c?branch=rawhide julietaula-montserrat-fonts-common should be automatically removed on updated, but it seems not the case suggesting a bug. -- 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
Re: Converting montserrat spec to new version
On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 5:37 PM Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > > > On 2021-10-21 02:01, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > Have you managed to get this to work, or what is the particular issue? > > > Fonts SIG helped resolve the issue. You can view the updated spec files > below: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/julietaula-montserrat-fonts/blob/rawhide/f/julietaula-montserrat-fonts.spec I'm not sure if this is a problem (or will be a problem at some point) ... After this update, two subpackages that are no longer part of this package are remaining on the system, and only removed when running "dnf autoremove" manually: - julietaula-montserrat-base-web-fonts - julietaula-montserrat-fonts-common Are they really no longer required by anything, and those files no longer provided by any subpackage? Then these two should be obsoleted by one of the remaining font subpackages. Fabio ___ 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
Re: Converting montserrat spec to new version
On 2021-10-21 02:01, Michael J Gruber wrote: Have you managed to get this to work, or what is the particular issue? Fonts SIG helped resolve the issue. You can view the updated spec files below: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/julietaula-montserrat-fonts/blob/rawhide/f/julietaula-montserrat-fonts.spec -- 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
Re: Converting montserrat spec to new version
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
Re: Converting montserrat spec to new version
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? ___ 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
