Archive:Fix Complex Font Template(draft)

From FedoraProject

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Draft to fix complex font template to be consistent with SRPM Macro Expansion)
 
Line 16: Line 16:
  
 
Would also keep it from showing up in the SRPM.  However, reviewers would need to be familiar with font packaging to be able to tell that this macro isn't expected to show up in the <code>%description</code>.
 
Would also keep it from showing up in the SRPM.  However, reviewers would need to be familiar with font packaging to be able to tell that this macro isn't expected to show up in the <code>%description</code>.
 +
 +
== Fix the tools ==
 +
 +
[https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564613#c4 As suggested by Panu]
  
 
[[Category:Packaging guidelines drafts]]
 
[[Category:Packaging guidelines drafts]]

Revision as of 07:20, 17 February 2010

Warning (medium size).png
This page is a draft only
It is still under construction and content may change. Do not rely on the information on this page.

The current Complex Font Template leaves an unexpanded macro in SRPMS. There's several proposed fixes.

Move the macro

 %_font_pkg -n <FAMILY> -f %{fontconf}-<FAMILY>.conf <NAME>*.ttf

Currently is right after the %description which is what causes issues. Moving it after the %clean section matches with the Simple Fonts Template, is where the expansion of the macro would normally live, and fixes the problem.

Use it conditionally

%{?_font_pkg: %_font_pkg -n <FAMILY> -f %{fontconf}-<FAMILY>.conf <NAME>*.ttf}

Would also keep it from showing up in the SRPM. However, reviewers would need to be familiar with font packaging to be able to tell that this macro isn't expected to show up in the %description.

Fix the tools

As suggested by Panu