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?
Whiteboard: (none) => MGA1TOO MGA2TOO
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
Appears to be the same. Needs nudging? Not worth it?
CC: (none) => nic
(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, warrendiogeneseWhiteboard: MGA1TOO MGA2TOO => MGA4TOO
@ 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.jonesWhiteboard: MGA4TOO => MGA5TOO
Yes, sorry, I thought I had taken the assignment.
Status: NEW => ASSIGNEDAssignee: bugsquad => luke.nukem.jones
re-assigning to all packagers collectively, since the assignee went MIA
Assignee: luke.nukem.jones => pkg-bugs
*** Bug 1671 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
CC: (none) => l-hedgehog
Whiteboard: MGA5TOO => MGA6TOO
Changing Status to NEW, because no one is working on it.
Status: ASSIGNED => NEW
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
(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?