Improving font packages
Fedora includes a large selection of font packages. Unfortunately, due to lack of strong font release conventions, variable packager experience, commitment or attention to detail, uneven package complexity, they're not all to the same quality standard.
This page will help you improve our font package quality pool by specifying ways you can help enhance existing packages, and ways you can tune new packages during creation.
Unfortunately that also increases the number of summaries and descriptions font packagers need to write, and upstreams do not always provide ready-to-use text snippets. Many packagers would appreciate proposals to improve those:
Font summaries need to be short and to the point. Usual informations are font style and Unicode coverage. Only repeat the font name(s) if you don't have anything else to write.
Font descriptions must detail information on the font style, Unicode coverage, and intended use to help users choose the right packages to install. Also, it is considered good form to credit the original font designer and sum up the font history.
Examples of terrific font descriptions are found on the Greek Font Society web site. This is what other font packages should strive to emulate.
We have strict naming rules that all font packages should follow. Please check they're respected.
Graphical diff tools such as meld can be especially helpful.
- try to find a packageset that works and packageset that does not
- compare the output of:
fc-match -s :family=<name>:lang=<loc>in both cases, with <name> the font family you requested and <loc> the target locale.
- if necessary, identify more precisely the problem font,
- examine the fontconfig rules shipped with the problem package,
# yum install fontpackages-devel meld $ meld foo.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/bar.conf
- report your findings.
Checking the package builds
Checking package sanity
Check the resulting packages with rpmlint
# yum install rpmlint $ rpmlint package1.rpm … packageN.rpm
Checking font specific issues
Check the resulting packages with repo-font-audit:
# yum install fontpackages-tools createrepo $ mkdir /tmp/testrepo $ mv package1.rpm … packageN.rpm /tmp/testrepo $ createrepo /tmp/testrepo $ repo-font-audit testrepo file:///tmp/testrepo
Checking upgrade paths
(when a set of packages is intended to replace another)
To check an upgrade path works:
- find a test Fedora system,
- make sure none of the new packages are already installed,
- install part or all of the old package set,
- copy the new packages to a local directory,
- run createrepo on this directory,
- point yum to it,
- try a yum update.
- if that fails, try to understand why, rpm -e whatever yum update installed and repeat from step 1.
You can also use:
rpm -qp --obsoletes mypackage
… to check the obsoletes declared by one of your new packages and,
yum list obsoletes
before the yum update to check what yum thinks about your new packages.
- Especially if layers of legacy compatibility rules make the spec file hard to read or maintain.
- Or they do not provide them in English
- Print, screen, headings, code…
- Look in /etc/rpmdevtools/.
- default rules provided by fontconfig upstream,
- rules written by Fedora packagers using our own templates: install fontpackages-devel and look in /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/,
- rules written by Fedora packagers without regard for our templates,
- rules written by font projects.
- While trying to:
- workaround KDE/QT fontconfig processing bugs,
- make sure one's font is the default for some languages,
- make sure one's font rendering preferences are default for one font,
- For example sans, serif…
- For example ja-jp, zh, etc.
- It would confuse the tools.
- If you're creating them:
[tmp] name=tmp baseurl=file:///tmp/rpm enabled=1 gpgcheck=0