Dear packager, At 20091029T192211Z, while scanning the rawhide repository located at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/static-repos/dist-rawhide-current/x86_64/ I have identified the following problems in your ghostscript-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 4 6 8 9 11 17 19
ghostscript-fonts ghostscript-fonts 17 2 4 8 17 17 17
Total 17 2 4 8 17 17 17
4. Fonts in packages that do not declare font metadata
☛ Font-specific rpm metadata is required for automatic font installation to
work. If you apply our font packaging templates, it will be generated at
package creation time.
6. Fonts that declare style attributes in family names
☛ To be properly processed by applications face qualifiers need to be
declared in style names. Some application stacks such as Microsoft WPF will
try to workaround bad font naming with dynamic renaming heuristics¹, but
heuristics are brittle and pose interoperability problems with applications
that do not use them.
If one your font files is listed here please ask its upstream to fix its
naming so it respects WWS conventions and does not need further
reprocessing. And in the meanwhile patch it (if it is available in sfd
format) or add a fontconfig rule to your package to hide the problem².
There may be a few false positives in this test as some common face
qualifiers can be used with a different meaning in family names.
¹ http://blogs.msdn.com/text/attachment/2249036.ashx
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/typotechnica2007/Font%20names.pdf
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/atypi2006/CSS%20&%20OT%2015.pdf
² cf the “fontpackages” remapping template; unfortunately this workaround
won't fix problems for non-fontconfig applications, or when interoperating
with other systems.
8. Exact font duplication
☛ Several packages duplicate font files with the same checksum. This
needlessly wastes resources.
9. Font faces duplicated by different packages
☛ Face duplication wastes resources infrastructure and user side.
Very often an upstream that copied some fonts will forget to keep them up
to date, and the duplication will result in the distribution of old buggy
data. Even when some duplicated font faces are a genuine fork with
different features from the original, applications won't be able to select
them reliably because of naming collision.
We should always ship only one version of a font face in the repository,
and use fontconfig or symlinks to share it accross packages.
11. Packages that mix different font families
☛ Reliable font auto-installation requires shipping only one font family
per font package.
(If you've remapped some font names at the fontconfig level your package
may appear here pending some fontconfig fixes upstream is aware of).
17. Fonts with partial script coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
be
accepted by fontconfig as covering one or several scripts. Therefore they
could be made useful to more people with only a little effort.
To check a font file script coverage, run fc-query with FC_DEBUG=256 and
look for lines like: script-id¹(number) { list-of-unicode-codepoints }
For example “mi(2) { 1e34 1e35 }” means fontconfig will accept the tested
file for Maori if codepoints 1e34 and 1e35 are added.
If you feel fontconfig is requiring a glyph which is not strictly necessary
for a particular script, report the problem upstream².
¹ http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php
² https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=fontconfig
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the ghostscript-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
ghostscript-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
_______________________________________________ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
