Bug 6634

Summary:	many fonts packages aren't named in accordance with our Font packaging policy
Product:	Mageia	Reporter:	Marja Van Waes <marja11>
Component:	RPM Packages	Assignee:	All Packagers <pkg-bugs>
Status:	NEW ---	QA Contact:
Severity:	normal
Priority:	Normal	CC:	geiger.david68210, l-hedgehog, luke.nukem.jones, nic, rverschelde, shlomif, warrendiogenese
Version:	Cauldron
Target Milestone:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:	MGA6TOO
Source RPM:	*fonts	CVE:
Status comment:
Attachments:	packages with "fonts" in the name

Description Marja Van Waes 2012-06-30 11:48:24 CEST

Created attachment 2509 [details]
packages with "fonts" in the name

According to https://wiki.mageia.org/en/Fonts_packaging_policy#Naming

our fonts should be named fonts-$type-$name

We have a mixture of fonts packages that are named according to the policy, and packages that aren't

The wrong ones are (mostly?) named *-fonts or *-*-fonts

I think we have over 30 with the correct names and less without, so changing the policy won't help

I'll attach the output of 
$ curl http://pkgsubmit.mageia.org/data/maintdb.txt 2>/dev/null|grep fonts > fonts.txt

Can renaming those packages be a junior job?

Marja Van Waes 2012-06-30 11:50:37 CEST

Whiteboard: (none) => MGA1TOO MGA2TOO

Comment 1 Marja Van Waes 2012-07-07 11:26:53 CEST

dmorgan just told on IRC that he'll update our Fonts packaging policy with the Fedora one.

So the packages that were according to our policy won't be according to it anymore

Comment 2 Nic Baxter 2015-03-10 08:25:04 CET

Appears to be the same. Needs nudging? Not worth it?

CC: (none) => nic

Comment 3 Marja Van Waes 2015-03-10 09:43:44 CET

(In reply to Nic Baxter from comment #2)
> Appears to be the same. Needs nudging? Not worth it?

Thx, Nic

CC'ing Akien, who'll be one of the packaging team leaders soon.

Also CC'ing diogenese, because of his interest in fonts.

It should be decided to either:

* keep the current fonts policy or
* follow the Fedora one and adjust ours accordingly
** however, Shlomi said on IRC, 2 (?) years ago, that our fonts policy is better than Fedora's
* drop the naming part of our fonts policy

To me, but I'm not a full packager, the naming part of our policy looks very good.

CC: (none) => remi, warrendiogenese
Whiteboard: MGA1TOO MGA2TOO => MGA4TOO

Comment 4 Marja Van Waes 2015-12-03 12:47:03 CET

@ Luke,

in comment 7 from bug 1671 you say:
 
> all fonts should begin following the correct procedure.

Does that mean that this bug can be assigned to you, too?

CC: dmorganec, lists.jjorge, nanardon => luke.nukem.jones
Whiteboard: MGA4TOO => MGA5TOO

Comment 5 Luke Jones 2015-12-03 18:29:34 CET

Yes, sorry, I thought I had taken the assignment.

Status: NEW => ASSIGNED
Assignee: bugsquad => luke.nukem.jones

Comment 6 Marja Van Waes 2016-05-18 21:59:34 CEST

re-assigning to all packagers collectively, since the assignee went MIA

Assignee: luke.nukem.jones => pkg-bugs

Comment 7 Samuel Verschelde 2016-08-27 16:33:23 CEST

*** Bug 1671 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

CC: (none) => l-hedgehog

Marja Van Waes 2019-02-19 09:39:07 CET

Whiteboard: MGA5TOO => MGA6TOO

Comment 8 Marja Van Waes 2019-02-19 09:39:36 CET

Changing Status to NEW, because no one is working on it.

Status: ASSIGNED => NEW

Comment 9 David GEIGER 2019-03-18 05:22:56 CET

something that is not really clear in our policies is should be the src.rpm package who should be absolutely named as fonts-$type-$name our just the rpm package/sub-package?

For me if it is just the rpm package/sub-package make more sense that the src.rpm.

E.g: One src.rpm can provides some fonts sub-pkg as fonts-ttf-foo and fonts-otf-foo and fonts-type1-foo.

CC: (none) => geiger.david68210

Comment 10 Marja Van Waes 2021-06-23 11:29:53 CEST

(In reply to David GEIGER from comment #9)
> something that is not really clear in our policies is should be the src.rpm
> package who should be absolutely named as fonts-$type-$name our just the rpm
> package/sub-package?
> 
> For me if it is just the rpm package/sub-package make more sense that the
> src.rpm.
> 
> E.g: One src.rpm can provides some fonts sub-pkg as fonts-ttf-foo and
> fonts-otf-foo and fonts-type1-foo.

I agree.
So the srpm should be named fonts-$name if they provide more than one font package (but may be named fonts-$type-$name if they only provide one font), the rpms should always be named fonts-$type-$name, right?