[Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483

--- Comment #9 from Rob Janes <janes.rob at gmail.com> 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 the
> %post script is a no go. I also agree that this is a blatant abuse of RPM.
> 
> The only way this can be packaged according to the guidelines is to illegally
> put the fonts inside the RPM. Therefore, IMHO, this package is not eligible for
> RPM Fusion.

debian has it without the eula.

ubuntu had it without the eula, up to 10.10.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/msttcorefonts/+bug/670629

microsoft england apparently asked canonical england to put the eula in. 
regardless of what the eula says, canonical went along with microsoft.  I think
out of politeness more than anything else.

I looked at the EULA, and I think it only needs to be on the sourceforge site,
it doesn't need to be in the rpm ... until maybe microsoft asks rpmfusion to
include a eula.  Since rpmfusion is not redhat or fedora officially, I doubt
microsoft will bother as long as it's not part of a default fedora
distribution.  Also, I'd argue that all you'd have to do is display the eula or
point to it.  It doesn't look like there's any need to prompt.

It might be an idea to put it in a /usr/share/doc directory.  not sure.

currently the fonts are installed in the pre step.  the eula could be displayed
in the pre step.

the ubuntu installer removes the fonts if the person does not accept ... and
does not fail the install, it carries on as if nothing happened.  That's
certainly doable in the post step.  I think the pre step is where you'd fail,
but you don't want to fail, so there's nothing wrong about doing this in the
post step.

But maybe I've misunderstood.  Why is installing the fonts in the post step a
no-go?  I read through the guidelines and I don't see anything about this. 
Perhaps you could point me to that specification?

As for this being a blatant abuse of rpm ... also, could you point me to
something in the guidelines?  I had a look (again) at www.rpm.org/max-rpm, and
at the fedora guidelines, and there's nothing about this "abuse of rpm" that
this overly long pre section constitutes that I can see.  Perhaps you could
point me to it?

I think that rpms are for ease of use for the end user, allowing for easy
distribution and upgrades.  Easy for the end user, not necessarily the package
maintainer(s).  The rpm doesn't have to be easy on the eyes for the package
maintainer.  rpms contain executable content (scripts).  They aren't config
files or xml files, they're essentially shell scripts in a cpio container.

There are other rpms on rpmfusion that have comparably long scripts in them. 
It may not be customary, most scripts just name a bunch of files and have some
post script to kick off some service.  By the nature of this rpm, it cannot be
like that, it has to have a script to download the cab files.

Certainly, this rpm is not for the maintainer who is averse to shell scripts.

However, for the end user it is a great improvement over the alternative.  This
rpm can be installed from yum, or from the gui installer, no need for autoplus,
fedorautils or easylife.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.