3:19 p.m.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Bug #: 2483
Summary: Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts
for the web
Classification: Unclassified
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: janes.rob(a)gmail.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
spec file:
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/mscorefonts2/specs/msttcore-fon...
Source rpm:
no source rpm. there is no source, the microsoft eula doesn't allow
distribution of the fonts with the rpm.
rpm:
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/mscorefonts2/rpms/msttcore-font...
========================================================================
Description:
This provides the TrueType core fonts for the web that were once
available from http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fontpack/ prior
to 2002, and most recently updated in the European Union Expansion
Update circa May 2007, still available on the Microsoft website.
With this rpm the actual font cab files are downloaded from a
Sourceforge project mirror and unpacked at install time. Therefore
this package technically does not 'redistribute' the fonts. The
fonts are then added to the core X fonts system as well as the Xft
font system.
These are the cab files downloaded:
andale32.exe, arialb32.exe, comic32.exe, courie32.exe,
georgi32.exe, impact32.exe, webdin32.exe, EUupdate.EXE,
wd97vwr32.exe
These cab files are only downloaded if EUupdate.EXE cannot be
downloaded, since the EUupdate.EXE cab contains updates for
the fonts in these cabs:
arial32.exe, times32.exe, trebuc32.exe, verdan32.exe
These are the fonts added:
1998 Andale Mono
2006 Arial: bold, bold italic, italic, regular
1998 Arial: black
1998 Comic: bold, regular
2000 Courier: bold, bold italic, italic, regular
1998 Impact
2006 Times: bold, bold italic, italic, regular
2006 Trebuchet: bold, bold italic, italic, regular
2006 Verdana: bold, bold italic, italic, regular
1998 Webdings
========================================================================
Fedora eligibility:
I haven't tried, but I assume licensing restrictions on the fonts would be an
issue, although the fonts are not a part of the rpm.
========================================================================
rpmlint:
========================================================================
This is my first rpmfusion package
========================================================================
I am seeking a sponsor.
[ I think that's what I'm supposed to do ]
--
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.
3:21 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |2, 30
--
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.
10:42 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |rdieter(a)math.unl.edu
--- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> 2012-09-16 00:42:29 CEST ---
the fonts are not redistributable even in rpm form.
--
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.
10:48 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #2 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 fonts are a few meg.
Are you saying that the fonts cannot be downloaded by a script and installed on
a system?
Is the issue that you think the fonts are in the rpm? The description says the
fonts are downloaded at install time. Would it help if I stated explicitly
that the fonts are not in the rpm?
--
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.
10:53 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> 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 packaging guidelines.
--
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.
11 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #4 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 to make it comply with fedora's packaging guidelines.
ok, great!
I just ran rpmlint and am working on correcting the issues.
If you have some suggestions on what to do to make it comply with fedora's
packaging guidelines?
--
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.
7:02 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #5 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> 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 not sure if "some" is the right word here. My view:
* post scripts that put somewhere that are not tracked by rpm are a no go
(maybe /opt/ or /usr/local/ might be an exception, but I'm not even sure about
that)
* a post script that long looks unacceptable to me, too
I'd say a better short term solution might be a rpm called
""msttcore-fonts-download-script" that contains a script the user has to
call
manually. That script then could do everything that is needed, as that makes it
way more obvious what's happening instead of abusing rpm (and it's pre and post
scripts) and kind of hiding what's really happening.
A proper long term solution might be extending akmods (or writing something
similar) that can download things, run a rpmbuild with a spec file that uses
those things and installs the resulting rpm afterwards.
All that of course: IMHO and YMMV
--
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.
1:10 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #6 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 packaging guidelines.
I'm not sure if "some" is the right word here. My view:
* post scripts that put somewhere that are not tracked by rpm are a no go
(maybe /opt/ or /usr/local/ might be an exception, but I'm not even sure about
that)
* a post script that long looks unacceptable to me, too
I'd say a better short term solution might be a rpm called
""msttcore-fonts-download-script" that contains a script the user has to
call
manually. That script then could do everything that is needed, as that makes it
way more obvious what's happening instead of abusing rpm (and it's pre and post
scripts) and kind of hiding what's really happening.
A proper long term solution might be extending akmods (or writing something
similar) that can download things, run a rpmbuild with a spec file that uses
those things and installs the resulting rpm afterwards.
All that of course: IMHO and YMMV
I had a look at debian's ttf-mscorefonts-installer. Specifically,
ttf-mscorefonts-installer_3.3ubuntu3_all.deb. It's in the multiverse pool, so
it seems to be part of standard ubuntu.
It does what this script does. It has huge pre and post scripts in the deb
that install the fonts when the deb is installed. Also, it installs the fonts
from the same sourceforge site.
Additionally, it puts out some microsoft EULA that has to be agreed to. I'm
not sure if that's necessary. It seems to defeat batch installs.
My intent in this was to write up a convenience rpm that could be easily
installed in one step.
The pre and post scripts of the deb are interesting. There are things done
that my scripts don't do. And, there are things my script does that the deb
does not do.
The integration with core X and Xft is not there. Maybe there's a level of
automation in ubuntu that fedora doesn't have, such that putting a new
directory and a font in that directory automatically causes updates of the
fontdir and cache and such.
However, the deb has more knowledge about the fonts and tracks what to
uninstall better.
So, I'd argue that a one stop installer rpm is an acceptable way to go. I'd
also argue that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with long scripts in the
spec file. The big script is in the preinstall section, so putting it into a
file installed by the rpm would be problematic. Possible, but that would mean
the grunt work is done in the postinstall section with a callout to this
script. My preference is not to do that external install and remove script.
In the deb package, the preinstall is all about the EULA, and it's the
postinstall that actually downloads the fonts. The preinstall is 75 lines
long, and the postinstall is 294 lines.
I like the name of the package. ttf-mscorefonts-installer.
--
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.
10:49 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> 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. 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.
--
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.
10:51 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #8 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> 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 New Roman, Liberation Sans for Arial and Liberation
Mono for Courier New.
--
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.
7:10 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #9 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)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.
7:22 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #10 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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
is a substitute for Times New Roman, Liberation Sans for Arial and Liberation
Mono for Courier New.
Display a notice? here's the notice the ubuntu package displays:
LIBERATION FONTS
----------------
The package fonts-liberation contains free variants of the Times,
Arial and Courier fonts. We recommend you use that instead unless you
specifically need one of the other fonts from this package.
The changelog for the ubuntu package notes that this message was meant to be
emphasized in some sense.
There's 7 other fonts in the package besides those three, including wingdings.
I mean, how can we ever get along without wingdings.
There's also
Croscore fonts: Arimo (sans), Cousine (monospace), and Tinos (serif)
Which is a redo of liberation fonts under an apache license, not a gpl license.
The Microsoft European Union update EUupdate.EXE came out in 2006, and redhat
came out with liberation in 2007, so I'm not sure the liberation fonts have the
updated handling of those funny european accents.
--
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.
7:54 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #11 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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/samp...
--
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.
9:18 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #12 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 liberation 2.
basically the same three fonts though, arial, times and courier.
--
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.
5:35 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #13 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> 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 user
for confirmation that he/she read it. RPM installs MUST be non-interactive.
http://www.oldrpm.org/hintskinks/interactive/
That was written in 2004. As far as I know, current versions of RPM go even
further to discourage interactive interaction, redirecting stdin (and maybe
even unsetting DISPLAY) for scriptlets so that you cannot prompt for user input
in them.
As for output (stdout/stderr), you can print some, but there is no guarantee
that the user will read it! PackageKit GUIs will NOT display scriptlet output
to the user. So it is also not suitable for EULAs.
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.
1. This is not possible because you cannot ask the user to accept or refuse.
See above.
2. Having the package "installed" when it actually isn't is very broken.
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?
It is a no-go because you have no way to have the user confirm the acceptance
of the EULA before nor inside %post. See above: RPM installations MUST NOT be
interactive.
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?
It's an abuse because the files installed that way will not be tracked by
package management, defeating the whole purpose of RPM.
The reason this is not spelled out in the guidelines is probably that it is
considered obvious.
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.
The guidelines are made for ease of use for the end user, they have nothing to
do with package maintainers' convenience!
* RPM installations MUST NOT be interactive because there are users who want to
automate it, and a scriptlet attempting to prompt for confirmation over stdin
breaks that.
* RPMs are not supposed to dump unowned files to /usr in %post because it makes
a mess of the end user's system.
There are other rpms on rpmfusion that have comparably long scripts
in them.
But those scripts do not dump files to the file system. That's what the payload
is for.
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.
And that's exactly why those scriptlets are broken.
There ARE specfiles for guidelines-compliant packages of those fonts. The
resulting RPMs just cannot be legally redistributed. (You'll probably find them
somewhere anyway. Just not in RPM Fusion.)
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.
I don't run any of those broken tools and I call them break-my-system tools.
Users should not be installing that proprietary crap in the first place, making
it easy is counterproductive.
Display a notice? here's the notice the ubuntu package
displays:
LIBERATION FONTS
----------------
The package fonts-liberation contains free variants of the Times,
Arial and Courier fonts. We recommend you use that instead unless you
specifically need one of the other fonts from this package.
As explained at the beginning of this comment, displaying a notice is not
helpful because there is no guarantee that the users will read it, in fact most
users (especially the ones who don't already know about the Liberation fonts)
will be using GUI tools and thus NOT read it.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Liberation_Fonts_2
Fedora 18 is bringing in the croscore fonts to replace the liberation fonts.
croscore will be liberation 2.
That might end up getting reverted though, the CrOS Core fonts have much worse
(or nonexistent) hinting than the Liberation 1 ones:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856239
--
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.
5:49 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #14 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> 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 read the
EULA) fetched rom the URL RPM field
- Download the software (either using the Source* URLs or from the manually
downloaded file).
- Build the RPM package with rpmbuild.
- Eventually install it on the user system.
--
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.
7:29 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #15 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 install the fonts.
2. the font directory is populated with stub files, which are overwritten by
the download script. This way the rpm uninstaller will automatically remove
the files.
3. source rpm built.
spec file:
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/mscorefonts2/specs/msttcore-fon...
Source rpm:
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/mscorefonts2/rpms/msttcore-font...
rpm:
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/mscorefonts2/rpms/msttcore-font...
--
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.
7:46 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #16 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 this rpm package. It was not.
It was intended to be a compare and contrast. As a pro and con comparison,
certainly the eula prompt is a con. On the pro side, is the automated download
and installation of these fonts.
Another on the pro side, is the background download and installation of the
fonts. I don't quite see how to do that in fedora.
Thorsten, Kevin - while I disagree with the idea that spec file scripts should
be short, I don't think it's productive to argue about it. The debian package
builder choose to split out the script, and I agree it helps debugging and has
legitimate independent functionality. So I've split it out.
Nicholas - I suppose that's possible, but it involves a lot of user interaction
I want to avoid. It sounds like a proposal that someone at microsoft might
want to work on.
--
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.
7:51 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #17 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 debian package had the download in the internal script, I
had in hand an earlier version of the package.
--
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.
3:06 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #18 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com> 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!
--
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.
4:50 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #19 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 "why would someone want
this package" I'm sure you'll find an answer there.
If your question is just as stated, "why would we want this package" ...
I'm
not sure that I'm in this "we" you might be referring to, so I am probably
not
qualified to answer that question. Really, the longer I linger here, the more
I'm inclined to that perspective. Perhaps reviewing the various comments
preceding this post will uncover an answer for that kind of question.
All I can speak to is to why *I* would want this package. This I know:
A substantial number of howto's for installing fedora 17 include instructions
for installing the ms truetype fonts for the web. The instructions are long,
failure prone, not obvious, clumsy, dated, and broken. I seek to have simple
instructions that are not broken, just like in debian.
By broken, I mean broken in the sense that they do not work, they spit out
errors and then die leaving crap behind, not broken in some aesthetic sense of
rpm correctness. I tried a few of those howto recipes and discovered the
sourceforge links were broken, the rpm failed, and even if it did install the
fonts they were not recognized. So, not only were the instructions bad, but
the resultant rpm was broken in a non-aesthetic functional sense.
In looking for a solution I found a number of efforts on the net to solve the
problems. Some addressed the sourceforge link problem successfully. There
were attempts to fix the font indexing problem, but none seemed to properly fix
it. Certainly, nowhere was there cognizance of the two separate X fonts
systems, and how to add fonts to both of them. Most of all, nowhere was there
a distributable rpm that was easy to use.
I would like to see as the instruction in the howtos:
yum install msttcore-xxxx
This instruction would download from sourceforge without error, and install the
fonts correctly to both X core and Xft, completely automatically without any
eula intervention.
A substantial commonality of the fedora 17 howto's include instructions for
setting up rpmfusion. That's why I came here. If this package is accepted
into rpmfusion, then the above instruction will be possible.
As it stands now, the instruction is
rpm -i
https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/mscorefonts2/rpms/msttcore-font...
I don't like it, it's fragile and has the version number in the name. It is
one line though, and I could change the "2.2-1" to "current". It is
better
than what came before.
'nuf said (thanks stan).
--
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.
1:56 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Blocks|2, 30 |
Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #20 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> 2013-05-20 15:56:31 CEST
---
There is nothing to review with this bug.
At least what could be done is a nosrc.rpm, but this is not handled by our
infra currently.
Microsoft fonts cannot be redistributed. so the review ends. period.
--
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.
12:22 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
CC| |kvolny(a)redhat.com
Resolution|INVALID |
--- Comment #21 from Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com> 2013-05-23 14:22:47 CEST ---
(In reply to comment #20)
Microsoft fonts cannot be redistributed.
in that case, would you be so kind to fix Wikipedia's article?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_fonts_for_the_Web
"However, that same EULA allows redistribution if the packages are kept in
their original format (.exe or .sit.hqx) and original filenames (e.g.
times32.exe) and not used to add value to commercial products."
--
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.
4:59 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #22 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> 2013-05-24 18:59:36 CEST ---
" ...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) most definitely does not satisfy the
requirement of "kept in their original format"
--
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.
5:09 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID |
--- Comment #23 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> 2013-05-24 19:09:18 CEST ---
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
The rpm payload would include the unmodified font sources, and installing would
store them on local disk somewhere, and %post scriptlet would do the heavy
lifting of unpacking and installing the fonts for use.
and per the wikipedia article
"Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute an unlimited
number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided that each copy shall be a
true and complete copy, including all copyright and trademark notices, and
shall be accompanied by a copy of this EULA."
So, as long as a copy of the EULA is included... this requirement may be
satisfied
(Not sure what "accompanied by a copy of this EULA" means legally, though to my
untrained eye, doesn't seem to require that it be forcefully shown to the user
to agree to...).
--
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.
12:38 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #24 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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) most definitely does not satisfy the
requirement of "kept in their original format"
uh ... the rpm does not contain the fonts. the rpm downloads the fonts as part
of the installation. the rpm does however contain files, empty files, with the
same name as the fonts. perhaps that's where the confusion comes from.
--
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.
12:45 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #25 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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
The rpm payload would include the unmodified font sources, and installing would
store them on local disk somewhere, and %post scriptlet would do the heavy
lifting of unpacking and installing the fonts for use.
and per the wikipedia article
"Reproduction and Distribution. You may reproduce and distribute an unlimited
number of copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT; provided that each copy shall be a
true and complete copy, including all copyright and trademark notices, and
shall be accompanied by a copy of this EULA."
So, as long as a copy of the EULA is included... this requirement may be
satisfied
(Not sure what "accompanied by a copy of this EULA" means legally, though to
my
untrained eye, doesn't seem to require that it be forcefully shown to the user
to agree to...).
from what i've seen, the rpm may not contain the fonts. not if it is
distributed on the internet. there are a number of rpmbuild spec files that
generate rpm files that contain the fonts. these generated rpm files however,
may only be distributed internally, or for offline use. At least in
jurisdictions respecting the microsoft eula.
the ubuntu version of this does make you look at the eula. it didn't used to,
but apparently microsoft complained about it. on the other hand, this deb is
part of core ubuntu. anything on rpmfusion wouldn't necessarily be made part
of core fedora, so it might not draw the attention of microsoft legal.
--
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.
2:13 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #26 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> 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 shipping unmodified font sources
instead (which seems to satisfy both policy and it's licensing/distribution
requirements)
--
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.
3:37 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #27 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 the most to dispute, but the core of his dispute
seems to be that the EULA must be shown, and that the rpm must not be
interactive. I disputed that the EULA needed to be shown, but he didn't seem
to want to go past that.
Oh - the other issue Kevin Kofler had was that the rpm installed files that
were not managed by the rpm system. That was correct at the time, but I fixed
that. I put stub files in the rpm with the same names as the font files.
They're installed by the rpm, and then overwritten with the correct versions by
download.
I didn't see anybody having an issue with an rpm that installed stuff by
downloading it. The problem appeared to be in the details, not in the overall
concept.
I've reviewed the rpmfusion guidelines and haven't seen where I've violated
the
guidelines. Of course, there is Kevin Kofler's claim that the violation was
self evident and obvious, and therefore did not need to be stated. So, perhaps
I've missed the thing that was so obvious (at least to Kevin Kofler) that it
wasn't written in to the guidelines.
personally, i'm of the opinion that if it isn't written in to the guidelines,
then it's not a guideline. However, I believe he was pointing to the long spec
script when he made that claim, and regardless of whether it was a guideline
issue or not, it did seem to be a reasonable concern, especially since the
debian and ubuntu versions addressed this too, and so I did re-write the spec
to move the code to a shell script and thus shortened the spec considerably.
--
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.
9:11 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #28 from Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com> 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://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_no...
and as RPMFusion inherits Fedora rules, you'd need an exception from this,
rather than saying that it's not in RPMFusion rules so it is okay
personally, I wouldn't have any objection against such an exception, but I've
heard rumours that there are machines not connected to Internet where people
want to install Fedora too
Of course, there is Kevin Kofler's claim that the violation was
self evident and obvious, and therefore did not need to be stated.
So, perhaps I've missed the thing that was so obvious (at least to Kevin
Kofler) that it wasn't written in to the guidelines.
ahem, I believe the "selfobvious" argument was directed only to the
interactivity, not to downloads ... needing interaction would mean breaking
kickstarts, automatic updates and the sole "yum -y", that's really obvious
we
can't do it
--
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.
10:23 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #29 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 less. font files would be termed "content", not
code, and i think things are a bit different for that. here's the rule you
pointed to ...
==================================== snip
Packages which are not useful without external bits
Some software is not functional or useful without the presence of external code
dependencies in the runtime operating system environment. When those external
code dependencies are non-free, legally unacceptable, or binary-only (with the
exception of permissible firmware), then the dependent software is not
acceptable for inclusion in Fedora. If the code dependencies are acceptable for
Fedora, then they should be packaged and included in Fedora as a pre-requisite
for inclusion of the dependent software. Software which downloads code bundles
from the internet in order to be functional or useful is not acceptable for
inclusion in Fedora (regardless of whether the downloaded code would be
acceptable to be packaged in Fedora as a proper dependency).
This also means that packages which are not functional or useful without code
or packages from third-party sources are not acceptable for inclusion in
Fedora.
==================================== snip
Certainly, this is directed at packages that sidestep licensing by downloading
licensed stuff rather than containing the material in the package. I would
guess this is deemed most incompatible when the licensed material in question
is code. This is really more a licensing rule than a rule about downloading.
here's from the rpmfusion faq:
http://rpmfusion.org/FAQ#Why_doesn.27t_the_Fedora_project_ship_the_Softwa...
================================== snip
Why doesn't the Fedora project ship the Software that RPM Fusion offers?
As Fedora is officially affiliated with Red Hat, Inc. in the Fedora Project,
Fedora is effectively bound by the same legal restrictions as Red Hat, as a US
company, is bound by. This means in particular that software encumbered with US
patents cannot be included in Fedora.
Fedora further only wants to ship software that is covered by Free and
Open-Source-Software licenses; see Fedora's Licensing Guidelines and its List
of Good Licenses for details.
Does RPM Fusion distribute illegal software?
No. RPM Fusion only distributes packages which can be legally re-distributed.
=================================== snip
rpmfusion exists separate from fedora as an extension of fedora, but with more
flexibility with regards licensing.
--
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.
11:25 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #30 from Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com> 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 things
are a bit different for that.
don't beat me for inaccuracies, I'm not font expert, but I believe TTF fonts
actually are treated as code because of some hinting stuff they include as code
this may be a start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrueType#Hinting_language
some more evil brainstorm:
1) I (am not the only one to) believe we can distribute the fonts if we keep
the original archives intact ... packing them together into a cpio archive with
some metadata doesn't count as a modification, as it could be understood as a
virtual filesystem they lay on, and there's no restriction whether you can put
the files on fat, ext2 or cpio image ...
2) the problem is that before use (or, right after unpacking) you have to show
EULA
hmmm ... what if the rpm included the unmodified files and the script to
install from them which would have to be run manually outside of rpm, plus the
placeholders for all the files installed by the script?
then you could use the package offline and won't break non-interactivity
btw, I like Gentoo's approach - you (as the admin) just put a clause that you
accept the particular license into the configfile, and you're set ...
--
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.
12:34 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |dtimms(a)iinet.net.au
--- Comment #31 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au> 2013-05-27 14:34:27 CEST ---
(In reply to comment #30)
hmmm ... what if the rpm included the unmodified files and the script
to
install from them which would have to be run manually outside of rpm,
And could
even have a gui icon eg system config | install micrsoft core fonts..
to make it easy to a) know they exist and b) easy to use c) could describe what
it is about to do, where the files are going to come from, and where they are
going to be installed to. And show an uninstall button as well.
Could an rpm post script that removes all the non-rpm installed files be
included / called from above gui ?
plus the placeholders for all the files installed by the script?
What will [rpm -V the-font-package] say ?
Surely it will tell you that someone has changed a whole bunch of installed
files. That wouldn't be ideal.
--
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.
7:11 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #32 from Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com> 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 will tell you that someone has changed a whole bunch of installed
files. That wouldn't be ideal.
this can be worked around by the %verify directive, see
http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-files-list-directives.html#S3-RP...
--
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.
1:04 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #33 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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) /usr/share/fonts/msttcore/arialbd.ttf
%verify(not md5 size mtime) /usr/share/fonts/msttcore/arialbi.ttf
%verify(not md5 size mtime) /usr/share/fonts/msttcore/ariali.ttf
%verify(not md5 size mtime) /usr/share/fonts/msttcore/arial.ttf
etc etc
--
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.
1:13 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |leamas.alec(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #34 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 2013-05-28 15:13:01 CEST
---
Hm... Have followed this discussion, have a similar case in spotify-client (bug
#2565), a non-redistributable binary application.
Basically, I feel that this is going in the wrong direction. The download stuff
is just so complicated and somehow pushes the limits of of the rpm mechanisms.
Frankly, downloading and installing stuff in scriptlets is not "sane" (the GL
requirement) in my eyes.
OTOH, I think Nicholas described the correct way to handle this in comment #14.
I have been thinking in the same ways, something like a dkms/akmod framework
which downloads and builds separate rpms.
I have made a sketch at https://github.com/leamas/lpbs. It's a framework
defining how non-redistributable packages can be built and installed using some
metadata in a separate package. As a proof of concept, I have implemented my
own spotify-client and msttcorefonts in the examples dir (sketchy!).
One reflection while doing this is that this discussion is a little lost in the
download/install issues. Besides those, this is a font package which seemingly
needs to be updated (naming, not using font template, no fontconfig) according
the font packaging GL.
I perfectly aware that lpbs isn't the final solution here. But I think it
demonstrates a cleaner way to cope with these legal issues (?)
BTW: Many thanks for the existing installer on sourceforge which I've been
using long time :)
--
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.
1:31 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #35 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 builders out there.
re inclusion of cab files in rpm in some format. my sense is that this is
treading on thin ice. nobody has gone down this path. ok, forgetting about
the legal stuff, here's what's needed:
* cpio file in the source directory
* this cpio file is removed in the post section. need some rpm magic so that
there are no complaints. i suppose it could be truncated, but it would
be best to remove it.
* the shell script will unpack and install the ttf files.
* still need ttf stub files
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 admin.
* put the fonts behind a fuse filesystem that detects first use.
* the fuser pops up a dialogue on the users screen with the eula.
* if they agree, fuse allows access to the fonts. otherwise, it's blocked.
on a multi user system, it's likely the sysadmin will never use the fonts,
and thus his/her confirmation of the eula is meaningless. end user license
agreement.
even if we made the rpm interactive (horror of horrors) it still won't be seen
by the end user necessarily.
just brainstorming. i'm fine with gentoo config file flags. i hate the ubuntu
eula that makes batch installs impossible.
--
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.
1:49 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #36 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 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 admin.
* put the fonts behind a fuse filesystem that detects first use.
* the fuser pops up a dialogue on the users screen with the eula.
Anything is possible. But it seems like copyright owners are satisfied if
someone accepts the eula on the system where it's used. Arguably, if this isn't
enough it should be part of the application (which of course doesn't make sense
for fonts...)
That said, I think the way described by Nicholas is the correct one: guide user
while she downloads, builds and installs the package as usual, with the normal
checking of root permissions when installing.
--
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.
11:05 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #37 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 mine, they
are all spec only distributions. Have a look at my webpage,
http://mscorefonts2.sourceforge.net/, it lists off all the other spec files.
ok, the only part missing is the part where the spec file makes the user read
the eula. none of the spec files do that, you just download the spec file
using wget or curl, and then rpmbuild it, eula-less.
note that the spec file would be large. the functionality i split out into a
separate shell script would be folded back in to the spec file, cause who wants
to wget two files when one will do. also, to the best of my knowledge none of
the spec files correctly handle both xft and x core font systems, nor do they
install the new set of fonts from microsoft. ideally you'd select the best of
the monster spec files, insert some forced eula reading stuff, back port the
font system stuff from my script, and the new set of fonts, and post it
somewhere, not rpmfusion, since rpmfusion doesn't publish spec files.
Noa Resare has a sourceforge site, and while he's not willing to work on the
spec file, he does seem to be willing to host one provided by somebody else.
His webpage is http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/.
--
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.
11:31 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #38 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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_Tru...
just a shell script, no spec file even!
--
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.
7:38 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #39 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 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 unacceptable. Just the fact that it
stores data not managed by rpm under /usr/share is end of discussion for me.
Regarding your rpm, it's basic assumption is that it's OK to download the
payload in a %pre scriptlet. My point (as well as Kevin K, Torsten L and
Nicholas) is that this takes too long time to be acceptable - somewhat more
formally it doesn't meet the "sane" criteria in the GL. Besides this, you
have
to take all kind of measures to walk around the normal rpm functionality. Since
I'm not the only one with this remark, you might have trouble finding someone
approving this approach.
Regarding my proposal, the idea is to find a common way to handle this kind of
software which cannot be re-distributed, with or without EULA restrictions.
Yes, it's basically just a way to distribute just the spec and support files.
But given the legal, administrative (Fedora GL) and technical constraints this
is the path to walk IMHO. The design is (hopefully) open to a GUI interface
(which is so much work to do that it really should be general, open to more
than msttcore fonts).
And, in the end, I envision a system like lpbs to just install and update the
spec container (lpbs-* packages in my case) transparently. User will be
noticed, be able to click a "Build and install" button and then be done after a
root password prompt. Good enough given the constraints IMHO.
--
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.
12:22 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #40 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 are wrong. (fixed -
the files are now tracked by rpm.)
2. long post scripts are wrong. (I don't agree, but changed it to comply by
moving the functionality into a shell script that is installed by the rpm)
3. would prefer a two step process where the rpm installs a script, that can be
called by a user to install the fonts.
4. suggests akmods extension.
comment #14, Nicolas Chauvet
1. visit website with eula, download stuff manually, run rpmbuild, install rpm.
Seeing as my goal was to have a one liner, a simple rpm -i or yum install to do
everything, that could be batched and not force someone to hit enter on the
eula, these suggestions seem to be in the other direction, something other than
ease of use.
Since you seemed to want a manual process with a spec file and rpmbuild, I
pointed you to what already exists.
It's not really what I want to do though. I made a rpm that's really easy to
use, and I'd like to help people who want to use it, use it.
that's all.
I understand your point(s) perfectly. It's just kind of not where I'm going.
i have the one liner. i have a yum repository (on sourceforge). all i need to
do is advertise. looking at sourceforge, i see that the rpm downloads are
being done about 1 million times a week. Looks to me like there is some value
in making this process easier - for the end user.
your collective suggestions have been helpful, when they were relevant to my
mission. Thanks!
i'll also add this, perhaps it might be helpful. i used to work at a place
with c++ coding guidelines, somewhat styled after google's. The guidelines
were great on paper, but it seemed they were perpetually misused, and 90% of
the code review, and critical errors flagged, were about spelling mistakes in
variable names and even in the comments. Even more significantly, bugs in the
code, easy to spot segfaults, were completely ignored or missed. Guidelines
are great, but it's important to not be pedantic and remember what the goal is.
so, if your guidelines mean for a difficult user experience if followed to the
letter, then I'll pick and choose what makes sense and ignore the rest.
thanks again.
--
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.
12:50 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #41 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 more than
once in the above.
Specifically, here's what it does:
* download happens in %post section.
* %post section is one line long
* %post section calls a shell script which IS part of the rpm
* all files are part of the rpm. the shell script overwrites files that are
controlled by the rpm.
you can look at the spec file if you like, the link is posted above. the shell
script is in the source rpm, link also posted above.
2. spec file and support files. yes, there are lots of people doing that. I
don't think that's the best approach, since it makes for long and annoying
instructions in the various guides. install this and that prereq. download
this spec file. run this rpmbuild. ignore the deprecation messages. oops,
sourceforge link is broken. gotta fix it. run it again. install the rpm
produced. oops, have to fix up the font system cause the rpm is busted.
that's when i said omfg, this can be done a whole lot better.
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 that do
everything. I don't see the point in installing some non-standard rpm just to
get a button you have to find and then press to finish the job. if you're
going to go to the trouble of making up an rpm, why not have the rpm just do
it? make_a_button_to_install_fonts_and_then_click_it_for_me_please.rpm.
sorry, couldn't resist.
that sort of stuff is not going to make anything any easier for the post
install guide followers, or the post install fixup script writers.
i hope you see where i'm coming from.
thanks
-rob
--
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.
10:49 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #42 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 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 "sane" in the GL sense. And, if I read your
comments correct (?) you tend to agree, while arguing that if the GL gives a
bad user experience they should be changed (or ignored).
While a perfectly consistent and perhaps relevant position (frankly, I don't
know) I do have respect for the fedora-related processes. From that perspective
I guess this review is then dead, since reviewing is about the GL.
Another part of this would be to start a discussion about a Fedora GL change to
open up for this kind of packages (not likely?) or a rpmfusion exception
(somewhat more likely?). Perhaps if you just sent an email to the rpmfusion
list explaining the general problem, possible alternatives and your position?
I have also been in environments handling bad guidelines, coding rules etc.
(both as user and maintaining rules). Still, I think that the rules here,
formed in consensus in an amazingly knowledgeable community is nothing of the
kind I've seen in closed, hierarchical companies. As long as one can listen (no
to me, still a newbie) here is so much to learn.
--
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.
11:47 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #43 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 version of the rpm out, 2.6-1, as of yesterday. This one downloads even
more, something I'm sure you're all thrilled to hear :-).
Mostly it was about adding the MS ClearType fonts, 2007, to the installation.
One of the fedora 18 post installation guideline writers suggested it.
--
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.
11:56 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #44 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 effect.
The recommendations for improvement have certainly helped, so the discussion
was not without value.
--
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.
12:19 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #45 from David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au> 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 that do
everything. I don't see the point in installing some non-standard rpm just to
get a button you have to find and then press to finish the job. if you're
...
On this item: if you use System Tools|Software to install a package, as it
completes, it offers to "Run new application ?", which seems to run the
installed program (eg Extreme Tuxracer). Maybe having gui that can show
info/license, and start install, check (eg md5sum verify), and uninstall would
be rather obvious; given you probably want GUI fonts to use in a GUI, and might
be installing said extra package from the GUI ;-)
--
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.
1:07 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #46 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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.
If you want to go that route you'd feel yourself obligated to show each of
them, and allow for various combinations of disdain and refusal.
* you'd still have to find the rpm and queue it for installation. Sure, from
this point forward it would be just a few more clicks.
Here's where the installations of this font set are coming from.
1. fedora post install guides. copy and paste some instructions in a text box
to the command line.
2. autoplus - may be gone
3. fedorautils - http://satya164.github.io/fedorautils/
4. easylife - http://sourceforge.net/projects/easylife-linux/
Those are the end user experiences I'm aiming to improve.
The copy and paste to the command line is easier than the gui hunting and
clicking. A guide writer would have to have screenshots, which are a pain.
The fedorautils and easylife users just check and install. i don't know if
there's any eula.
--
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.
2:45 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #47 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 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:FontsPolicy.
In particular:
- The name should probably be msttcore-fonts since a -fonts suffix is
customary.
- The fontconfig file is missing (and probably not trivial in this case...)
Just my 5 öre
--
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.
3:37 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #48 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 it
in the context of a system, not a file.
X has two font systems. X Core fonts is deprecated. The new font system I've
been calling Xft, but in the documents you've linked to it's called
"fontconfig".
The rpm i built activates the fonts in both systems.
The linked document refers to a font template which should be built. The
format looks a lot like a spec file. I'll read it and see if it makes sense to
do it.
Following all the guidelines there sounds problematic. It's for fonts to be
introduced to fedora or are very close to fedora. That's never going to happen
with my stuff, so I'm not sure if it's worth the effort, especially if it means
breaking up the rpm into multiple rpms. I wanted to get one rpm to install all
the microsoft fonts, just to make it easy.
not sure if I want to change the name yet again ... if I change the name again
it'll be back to the old name to try and suck up the air from the broken rpms.
Anyways, thanks again for the pointer.
--
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.
4:16 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #49 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 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 you'll find it: something like
msttcore-font-fontconfig.conf. It's part of the fontconfig system, for sure.
In this particular case, with many foundries providing the families in msttcore
I guess the fontconfig file which somehow governs the priorities here is still
more important. But to be honest, I don't really grasp this stuff.
Making the installation easy is of course one main objective. The other is that
it actually works ;) That's the bad thing when the font package isn't going
into Fedora - there's no review done by those who actually knows this stuff (e.
g., Nicholas)
--
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.
2:14 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #50 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 indicated tools to list the fonts. Verify the fonts appear in the
list (fc-list for fontconfig), and did not appear prior.
2. create a document in ms word using the fonts. verify the document looks the
same under linux openoffice, and does not look right prior to installing my
rpm.
The first two points meet the requirement of being able to view documents
produced in windows.
3. go in to openoffice, verify the fonts appear there, and look more or less
correct (and don't appear there prior).
4. verify you can use the fonts in openoffice (and can't use the fonts without
the rpm).
Well, I couldn't verify that the fonts are displayed exactly correctly, but it
looks pretty much the same to my eye.
I did the same for X Core fonts, the older system, although finding an editor
that used X Core and not fontconfig/Xft was difficult.
yum info fontconfig
Name : fontconfig
Arch : x86_64
Version : 2.10.2
Release : 2.fc18
Size : 521 k
Repo : installed
Summary : Font configuration and customization library
URL : http://fontconfig.org
License : MIT and Public Domain and UCD
Description : Fontconfig is designed to locate fonts within the
: system and select them according to requirements specified by
: applications.
rpm -ql fontconfig
etc etc.
This package contains the commands I've been using to make the fonts known.
This package contains fc-list. I use fc-list and I see the msttcore fonts
listed.
Fontconfig uses /etc/fonts/conf.d to name the font directories. The rpm puts
an xml file in there to point to the msttcore fonts. then it calls up fc-cache
to rebuild the font index.
Xft is the font rendering library for truetype fonts under fontconfig.
I guess the fc in the fc-xxxx commands stands for fontconfig.
It looks to me like the only thing that's missing in my rpm is font family
substitutions, which you find specified in /usr/share/fontconfig/... need to
research this more, this is what i gather from scanning the documents.
I think the lack of that means that you must specify the font name exactly.
What I wanted to see was that ms documents, spreadsheets, pdfs, that used the
fonts displayed properly. I verified that, and that you can select the font
from the lists of fonts in openoffice or somesuch. Such a process would likely
use the exact name.
I do have a webpage that doesn't display the fonts correctly. perhaps that's
the problem, not having the names right. I'll have to look in to that.
I'll change the online documentation to name "fontconfig" as something
tested,
and (allegedly) supported by the rpm.
Thanks!
--
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.
2:29 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #51 from Rob Janes <janes.rob(a)gmail.com> 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 convention.
my rpm only puts a 09xxx file (for naming font directories) if the msttcore
font directory is NOT a subdirectory of the main fontconfig directory.
/etc/fonts/conf.d/README:
Each file in this directory is a fontconfig configuration file. Fontconfig
scans this directory, loading all files of the form [0-9][0-9]*.conf.
These files are normally installed in ../conf.avail and then symlinked here,
allowing them to be easily installed and then enabled/disabled by adjusting
the symlinks.
The files are loaded in numeric order, the structure of the configuration
has led to the following conventions in usage:
Files begining with: Contain:
00 through 09 Font directories
10 through 19 system rendering defaults (AA, etc)
20 through 29 font rendering options
30 through 39 family substitution
40 through 49 generic identification, map family->generic
50 through 59 alternate config file loading
60 through 69 generic aliases, map generic->family
70 through 79 select font (adjust which fonts are available)
80 through 89 match target="scan" (modify scanned patterns)
90 through 99 font synthesis
--
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.
5:07 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |oget.fedora(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #52 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com> 2013-06-11 07:07:18 CEST
---
(In reply to comment #19)
Orcan - did you manage to look at any of the links?
Hey, sorry for the late reply. Yes, I looked at the links and the posts. The
only arguments that I found are:
1 - Existing MS font installation scripts or instructions are broken
2 - Some PDFs without embedded Windows fonts look bad, or they *may* give
errors when a font is not found.
Well,
1 - This is not an answer to my question, really.
Q: Why do we want ice-cream?
A: Because all ice-cream trucks are broken.
Who cares?
2 - In my 12 years of Unix experience, I did not encounter such a PDF file.
Assuming such a file exist (I am very curious to see this PDF file. It makes me
wonder how Windows fonts can make a document look better. <rant>I guess I am
tortured enough at work every day by those Windows fonts</rant>) can one not
ask the PDF creator/distributor to provide a proper PDF file?
Having the infinitesimal probability of accidentally installing Windows fonts
on my Linux box irritates me enough. But we are in somewhat of a democracy. If
you can find a package reviewer, and prove your way around the licensing and
the packaging guidelines, you might ave a shot.
Best
--
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.
9:59 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
--- Comment #53 from Karel Volný <kvolny(a)redhat.com> 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
there (e.g. from the government when trying to do taxes in Czech rep.)
Assuming such a file exist (I am very curious to see this PDF file.
really? - then ping me via email asking for the file
DPFDP4-8006260020-20110324-172531-1345111-potvrzeni.pdf
(I see no point in attaching it here)
It makes me wonder how Windows fonts can make a document look
better.
<rant>I guess I am tortured enough at work every day by those Windows
fonts</rant>)
the problem is not whether the font itself looks ugly, there are problems with
missing characters and with different character placements and sizes
note this is a problem not just with PDFs, but with almost any document created
by ignorant Windows users by their ignorant Windows tools
can one not ask the PDF creator/distributor to provide a proper PDF
file?
I've tried, spending my time learning about PDF specifications and pointing to
exact paragraphs their software does not obey
guess what was that worth ...
Having the infinitesimal probability of accidentally installing
Windows fonts
on my Linux box irritates me enough.
have you ever heard about blacklisting packages, e.g. by adding "exclude=..."
to yum.conf? :-)
--
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.
10:46 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 2483] Review request: msttcore-fonts - TrueType core fonts for
the web
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2483
Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
namespace| |nonfree
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #54 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com> ---
Closed because so far, we cannot redistribute msttcore-fonts.
lpf package have been approved
(https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3177), so this is the way
forward.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
2422
days inactive
4234
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
55 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
RPM Fusion Bugzilla