https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Nicolas Chauvet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
namespace|
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #53 from Karel Volný 2013-06-11 11:59:02 CEST
---
(In reply to comment #52)
> 2 - In my 12 years of Unix experience, I did not encounter such a PDF file.
call yourself lucky, but some of us are getting broken PDFs every here and
th
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Orcan Ogetbil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||oget.fed...@gmail.com
--- Comment #52 f
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #51 from Rob Janes 2013-06-01 16:29:16 CEST
---
slight correction - /etc/fonts/conf.d is the directory, and files in there are
often symlinks to /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail.
There's a helpful README that explains the naming co
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #50 from Rob Janes 2013-06-01 16:14:32 CEST
---
yes, that's good to have. However, my rpm already handles fontconfig, what
I've been calling Xft.
Here's what I've done (months ago) to test the font installation.
1. use the indica
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #49 from Alec Leamas 2013-06-01 06:16:33
CEST ---
(In reply to comment #48)
> Alec L - thanks for the info ...
>
> i think "fontconfig" refers to a font system, not a particular file.
Nope. Just look at any existing font rpm, and
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #48 from Rob Janes 2013-06-01 05:37:49 CEST
---
Alec L - thanks for the info ...
i think "fontconfig" refers to a font system, not a particular file. I
searched the document you linked to, and all references to "fontconfig" used i
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #47 from Alec Leamas 2013-06-01 04:45:53
CEST ---
I note that this discussion has been focused on the downloading stuff.
Downloading aside, this is a font package and there is info on that at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #46 from Rob Janes 2013-05-30 15:07:38 CEST
---
David T -
I'm still back at the "the EULA doesn't need to be shown or confirmed". But,
for discussion -
* there's three separate font packages each with their own Eula/license etc.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #45 from David Timms 2013-05-30 14:19:17 CEST
---
(In reply to comment #41)
...
> 3. this font set will never be part of the standard install. it will always
> be
> done by either post install guides or those big fixup scripts tha
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #44 from Rob Janes 2013-05-30 13:56:55 CEST
---
Alec L -
Well, this may be moot, but I don't agree that the GL outlaws such behaviour.
It's fairly clear though that you, and others, think so.
I've quoted the gl, but without effec
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #43 from Rob Janes 2013-05-30 13:47:44 CEST
---
Alec L, thanks for your comments.
just fyi, the %verify did not work, it complained about multiple instances of
the same file. I also had an %attr, so I guess they overlapped.
new v
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #42 from Alec Leamas 2013-05-30 12:49:23
CEST ---
Sloppy reading, sorry, this happens in %post and not in %pre. My bad.
But this doesn't really change anything, my view is the same: to download the
payload in a scriptlet is not "sa
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #41 from Rob Janes 2013-05-30 02:50:52 CEST
---
oops, forgot about specifics ...
1. no, there is no scriptlet in the the %pre section to download stuff that is
not controlled by rpm. lets be clear about that. i've asserted this m
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #40 from Rob Janes 2013-05-30 02:22:26 CEST
---
Alec L, well, i'm pretty sure i understand the comments you mentioned.
comment #5, Thorsten Leemhuis, implies lots is wrong.
1. post scripts that dump files that aren't tracked by rpm
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #39 from Alec Leamas 2013-05-29 21:38:09
CEST ---
Thanks for taking time to reply. That said I think you miss the point in my
proposal, which basically reflects comment #5 and comment #14.
Regarding the downloader, it's totally una
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #38 from Rob Janes 2013-05-29 13:31:54 CEST
---
here's some instructions that seem to do what you want, including the eula
display ...
http://wiki.missingbox.co.nz/index.php?title=Fedora_16/17/18_Guide#MS_TrueType_and_ClearType_Cor
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #37 from Rob Janes 2013-05-29 13:05:07 CEST
---
Alec Leamas, re support of Nicholas Chauvet's suggestion,
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483#c14
That kind of sums up ALL of the rpms already out there. Except for m
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #36 from Alec Leamas 2013-05-28 15:49:40
CEST ---
(In reply to comment #35)
>
[cut]
> since we're brainstorming about the eula, how about ...
> * linux x-windows is multi user. the fonts will be used by anybody, not just
> the ad
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #35 from Rob Janes 2013-05-28 15:31:34 CEST
---
re font files as code ... ok, postscript fonts too, but I still don't think
they fall in the spirit of the guideline, which is for "real" code, sorry,
don't mean to insult any font bui
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #33 from Rob Janes 2013-05-28 15:04:20 CEST
---
great idea, thanks!
do i have to list the files, or can i just put in the top directory?
%verify(not md5 size mtime) /usr/share/fonts/msttcore/andalemo.ttf
%verify(not md5 size mtime
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Alec Leamas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com
--- Comment #34 fro
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #32 from Karel Volný 2013-05-28 09:11:14 CEST
---
(In reply to comment #31)
> (In reply to comment #30)
> > plus the placeholders for all the files installed by the script?
> What will [rpm -V the-font-package] say ?
> Surely it wil
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
David Timms changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dti...@iinet.net.au
--- Comment #31 from
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #30 from Karel Volný 2013-05-27 13:25:34 CEST
---
(In reply to comment #29)
> But this rule refers to code, not font files which i believe are bitmaps more
> or less. font files would be termed "content", not code, and i think thin
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #29 from Rob Janes 2013-05-27 12:23:41 CEST
---
that rule is from fedora project. yes, i read the rpmfusion contributors
document that points to it. But this rule refers to code, not font files which
i believe are bitmaps more or
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #28 from Karel Volný 2013-05-27 11:11:58 CEST
---
(In reply to comment #27)
> I've reviewed the rpmfusion guidelines and haven't seen where I've violated
> the guidelines.
probably, this is the rule in question:
https://fedoraproj
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #27 from Rob Janes 2013-05-27 05:37:08 CEST
---
Ok, re consensus - i reviewed the above comments, and i don't see any
consensus.
Rex Dieter and Thorsten Leemhuis say it can go in if guidelines are met.
Kevin Kofler seemed to have
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #26 from Rex Dieter 2013-05-25 04:13:18 CEST
---
I thought a consensus had been reached that shipping an rpm that is nothing
more than a script to download the stuff is not acceptable.
So, I offered an alternative solution of shipp
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #25 from Rob Janes 2013-05-25 02:45:14 CEST
---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Evil brainstorm:
>
> Could go the route of being similar to a kernel dkms or adkmod rebuilt at
> runtime similar to thorsten's suggestions in comment #5
>
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #24 from Rob Janes 2013-05-25 02:38:40 CEST
---
(In reply to comment #22)
> " ...that same EULA allows redistribution if the packages are kept in their
> original format (.exe or .sit.hqx)"
>
> Repacking the fonts in an rpm (imho)
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Karel Volný changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
CC|
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Nicolas Chauvet changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Blocks|2, 30
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #19 from Rob Janes 2012-10-08 06:50:55 CEST
---
Orcan - did you manage to look at any of the links?
try this one ...
https://sourceforge.net/projects/mscorefonts2/files/rpms/
and look at the README. If your question is really "w
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #18 from Orcan Ogetbil 2012-10-08 05:06:16
CEST ---
I have a question that I don't think was asked before: Why do we want this
package? (seriously)
I am asking this out of my curiosity, not for package reviewing purposes.
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #17 from Rob Janes 2012-10-07 21:51:07 CEST
---
oh - just to clarify - the debian package for this started out with huge post
and pre scripts, but at some point that was packaged into an external script.
when i wrote that the debia
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #16 from Rob Janes 2012-10-07 21:46:31 CEST
---
also, renamed the package to msttcore-fonts-installer.
Kevin - I was describing the debian package for the msttcore fonts. I'm sorry
if you understood that to be a proposal for a thi
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #15 from Rob Janes 2012-10-07 21:29:27 CEST
---
ok, i've made a few changes. rpmlint no longer gives me errors.
1. the download and install script has been moved to a shell script that is
installed. The rpm runs this script to in
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #14 from Nicolas Chauvet 2012-09-23 19:49:06
CEST ---
"Again", the solution for that is to think the package as a nosrc.rpm.
Then to create a generic tool that :
- Bring the user to the upstream download site. (that will make them
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #13 from Kevin Kofler 2012-09-23 19:35:13
CEST ---
> currently the fonts are installed in the pre step. the eula could be
> displayed
> in the pre step.
No. You should not display anything in the pre step and you CANNOT ask the u
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #12 from Rob Janes 2012-09-19 11:18:18 CEST
---
further to the previous ...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Liberation_Fonts_2
Fedora 18 is bringing in the croscore fonts to replace the liberation fonts.
croscore will be l
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #11 from Rob Janes 2012-09-18 09:54:15 CEST
---
here's a document with all the fonts in it ...
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/projects/mscorefonts2/files/samples/sample-fonts.doc
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #10 from Rob Janes 2012-09-18 09:22:35 CEST
---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I'll also point out that Fedora ships metrically compatible substitutes for
> Times New Roman, Arial and Courier New: the Liberation fonts. Liberation Serif
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #9 from Rob Janes 2012-09-18 09:10:02 CEST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> RPM installation cannot be interactive, and I don't think the EULA allows you
> to install the fonts without showing the EULA, so installing the fonts from
>
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Kofler 2012-09-18 00:51:44
CEST ---
I'll also point out that Fedora ships metrically compatible substitutes for
Times New Roman, Arial and Courier New: the Liberation fonts. Liberation Serif
is a substitute for Times N
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler 2012-09-18 00:49:19
CEST ---
RPM installation cannot be interactive, and I don't think the EULA allows you
to install the fonts without showing the EULA, so installing the fonts from the
%post script is a no go.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #6 from Rob Janes 2012-09-16 15:10:14 CEST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> >
> > So, yes, this could very well go into the rpmfusion nonfree section, given
> > some
> > work to make it comply with fedora's
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #5 from Thorsten Leemhuis 2012-09-16
09:02:14 CEST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
>
> So, yes, this could very well go into the rpmfusion nonfree section, given
> some
> work to make it comply with fedora's packaging guidelines.
I'm
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #4 from Rob Janes 2012-09-16 01:00:31 CEST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Oh, I misunderstood, not having looked at the .spec in question.
>
> So, yes, this could very well go into the rpmfusion nonfree section, given
> some
> work
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter 2012-09-16 00:53:49 CEST
---
Oh, I misunderstood, not having looked at the .spec in question.
So, yes, this could very well go into the rpmfusion nonfree section, given some
work to make it comply with fedora's p
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #2 from Rob Janes 2012-09-16 00:48:44 CEST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> the fonts are not redistributable even in rpm form.
I don't understand this comment. The fonts are not in the rpm. The resultant
rpm is about 10k. The font
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu
--- Comment #1 from R
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Rob Janes changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2, 30
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzil
55 matches
Mail list logo
