Packaging:Minutes/20080826

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting 2008-08-26

Members Present

• Denis Leroy (delero)
• Dominik Mierzejewski (Rathann|work)
• Hans deG oede (hansg)
• Jason Tibbitts (tibbs)
• Ralf Corsepius (racor)
• Rex Dieter (rdieter)
• Tom Callaway (spot)
• Toshio Kuratomi (abadger1999)
• Xavier Lamien (SmootherFrOgZ)

IRC Logs

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:00:01] Topictibbs sets the channel topic to "Packaging Committee Meeting".

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:00:35] * Rathann present

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:00:41] * tibbs here

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:01:38] * spot is here

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:01:52] <racor>i am here, have ca. 15 mins time.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:02:01] <spot>racor: thanks for coming

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:02:06] <tibbs>rdieter, abadger1999: ping

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:02:15] <rdieter>here

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:02:33] <tibbs>Anyone else I missed?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:03:14] Joindelero has joined this channel (n=denis@AMontsouris-156-1-79-180.w90-24.abo.wanadoo.fr).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:03:18] <abadger1999>here

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:03:22] <delero>here

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:03:34] <tibbs>That's seven.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:04:08] <spot>we're missing hans and Xavier

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:04:17] <spot>but hey, quorum. :)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:04:25] <abadger1999>Woo hoo :-)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:04:34] <spot>okay, first order of business, the drafts that i sent around via email

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:04:42] <spot>some of you voted over email, thanks.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:04:46] <spot>however, some of you did not

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:05:12] <tibbs>I saw five sets of votes including my own.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:05:19] <spot>yep.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:05:41] * Rathann wonders why the members list link on FPC wikipage points nowhere

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:05:52] <abadger1999>Haskell +1, Lisp: +1, fonts.... I'd like to know if the fonts sig will enforce those if we vote 0.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:06:26] <spot>delero: would you like to vote?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:06:30] <spot>we have votes for everyone else

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:06:33] <Rathann>abadger1999: or at least how much work it is to enforce that

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:06:41] * rdieter just sent email minutes ago, in short, I +1'd all of them (including fonts).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:06:53] <tibbs>Rathann: Probably more damage from the conversion. I keep cleaning things up but there's always something else.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:06:57] <delero>i went over them, +1 for me for all 3

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:07:27] <tibbs>There were four.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:07:39] <Rathann>but two were about fonts and related

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:07:48] <tibbs>True. But two separate proposals.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:07:54] <Rathann>yup

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:08:03] <spot>okay, haskell and lisp clearly pass

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:08:20] <Rathann>which is why I should add my vote for font bundles: 0

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:08:33] <spot>On the Lisp draft, the following comments were made:

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:08:35] <abadger1999>I like both the font proposals. If the fonts-sig is going to enforce them anyways 9as part of a SIG best practice) then I have even more reason to vote +1.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:08:43] <spot>Needs adding an ASDF system definition file template (or link to syntax).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:09:00] <spot>needs to add an empty %build to his spec template

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:09:03] <tibbs>I think the link at the bottom should suffice.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:09:05] <delero>i'm ok with the font bundling proposal as well, +1 from me

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:09:21] Partreplica has left this channel ("Leaving").

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:09:38] <spot>my concern around the font bundling proposal is that they were drafted specifically to prevent texlive

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:09:54] <abadger1999>spot: Err... specifically in response to texlive.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:10:01] <spot>yes, rather.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:10:22] <spot>while i think that texlive is a clear exception to that guideline

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:10:41] <Rathann>I wonder how much work it would be for texlive packager to adapt texlive to follow that guidline

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:10:51] <tibbs>Well, texlive does need cleanup.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:11:01] <racor>my concern is that fonts are being bundled with other sources, whatever the font sig wants doesn't change much about it

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:11:02] <tibbs>But it's going to have to evolve in that direction.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:11:18] <rdieter>grandfather'd exception for texlive, +1 (that doesn't mean that efforts to fix it shouldn't happen)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:11:23] <Rathann>if it's doable in reasonable time, then I'd vote +1 on both font proposals

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:11:50] <tibbs>I think the "no bundling of fonts" proposal is simply unworkable.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:11:59] Joinfbijlsma has joined this channel (n=fbijlsma@92.50.110.191).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:12:19] <tibbs>If I have a game or something that has a simple bitmap font in its own internal format.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:12:36] <Rathann>hmm

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:12:38] <Rathann>good point

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:12:42] <tibbs>It's a "font" according to the guideline, but I doubt there's going to be any call to split it.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:12:51] <spot>ok, lets vote on the font bundles proposal first (with an exception for texlive for the time being)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:13:04] <racor>-1

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:13:05] <tibbs>-1

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:13:31] <rdieter>+1

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:13:37] <spot>this is http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Packaging_font_bundles

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:13:57] <abadger1999>+1

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:14:23] <tibbs>I also have to wonder why fonts are special here.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:14:36] Quithanthana has left this server ("Leaving").

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:14:36] <Rathann>tibbs: because they can be used by other apps?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:14:53] <tibbs>The arguments work for more than just fonts.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:15:00] <spot>well, to be fair, we don't generally permit multiple software items from multiple sources to live in the same srpm

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:15:01] <abadger1999>tibbs: That's true. I could go for a more general rule.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:15:04] <racor>Rathann: Many files can be used by other apps (shared libs, images, sound, movies ...)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:15:04] <rdieter>tibbs: good point, there's currently a best-practice/unwritten rule already about separate sources => separate pkgs.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:15:11] <abadger1999>But that doesn't eliminate my +1 for the subset :-)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:15:19] <tibbs>I don't know if everyone saw my suggested alternative.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:15:46] <rdieter>tibbs: please refresh our memory.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:16:07] <tibbs>I would

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:16:07] <tibbs>consider it it were distilled to a simple strong suggestion that separate

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:16:07] <tibbs>upstream projects not be bundled together in the same package. I

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:16:07] <tibbs>believe that's an unwritten rule already.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:16:09] <spot>tibbs: "a simple strong suggestion that separate upstream projects not be bundled together in the same package."

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:16:33] <tibbs>But I don't want to derail the current vote. I can write a proposal later.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:16:34] <rdieter>I can totally support that.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:16:42] <spot>i'm much more in favor of that

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:16:50] <Rathann>0 unless a list of font formats to which this guideline is applicable is supplied (+1 then)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:16:51] <abadger1999>tibbs: I'd love to have that written down rather than unwritten.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:17:09] <delero>strictly enforcing it on existing packages is going to be tough, especially on dormant projects where the fedora packager has become the ad-hoc maintainer

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:17:11] <abadger1999>Although textlive, for instance, has already brought issues up wrt that :-(

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:17:33] <Rathann>tibbs has a good point about bundled fonts that could not be used system-wide

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:17:36] <tibbs>Enforcing anything on existing packages has always proven difficult.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:17:39] <delero>pstoedit is an example, it ships with an old bitmap font

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:17:48] <abadger1999>as texlive is an upstream but is also a conglomeration of other upstreams, how does the rule apply?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:18:22] <abadger1999>I don't need that answered now, just saying that question has already been raised.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:18:40] Joinkulll has joined this channel (i=d318e240@gateway/web/ajax/mibbit.com/x-51e879affd397ab0).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:18:41] <Rathann>also, it doesn't always make sense to make some obscure fonts (symbol fonts, incomplete fonts) visible system-wide

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:18:52] <spot>I think that we should say something like "Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package."

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:19:04] <rdieter>I'd say let's ask for the current bundles draft to strike paragraph 1, pending a more general soon-to-come guideline.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:19:11] <Rathann>so while I agree with the guideline in the spirit, it needs to allow for common sense and not be as strict

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:19:20] <abadger1999>I just got a call. I have an electrician coming out to the house and will have to leave when he gets here.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:19:22] <delero>Rathann: +1

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:19:35] <rdieter>Rathann: I read it that way already, it says SHOULD

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:20:17] <Rathann>ah

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:20:34] <Rathann>right, the last paragraph of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages clears it up a bit

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:21:11] <Rathann>but I'd limit it to what I suggested above

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:21:23] <racor>i think paragraphs 2+3 should be striked. They attempt to special case something which isn't a special case.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:21:24] <Rathann>i.e. not only general-purpose formats but general usability

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:21:36] <tibbs>rdieter: The Packaging font bundles proposal doesn't seem to say SHOULD. Lots of MUSTs there.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:22:04] <rdieter>I'm reading http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Packaging_font_bundles , which includes MUST only in paragraph 1, which I think we've all agreed needs to be stricken anyway

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:22:37] <spot>with two -1, and one 0, there is no way that "Packaging_font_bundles" can pass

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:22:38] <rdieter>the only must remaining is the licensing bit, but maybe that's not required hee

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:22:39] <tibbs>Email from Xavier: he'll be a bit late.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:22:52] <Rathann>does "packaged separately" mean a totally separate package or can it be a subpackage?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:23:08] <Rathann>hm looks like the former

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:23:10] <rdieter>Rathann: I read that as either

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:23:12] <tibbs>I read it as "totally separate package".

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:23:26] <racor>source or binary package?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:23:31] <rdieter>sorry. context matters. ignore me

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:23:32] <tibbs>Otherwise arguments about separate upstream release cycles and such make no sense.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:23:34] <racor>demanding a separate source package is silly

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:23:40] <spot>can we vote on adding "Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package." to the main guidelines?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:23:52] <rdieter>spot: +1 to that

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:23:54] <Rathann>spot: +1

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:23:57] <delero>spot: +1

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:24:05] <tibbs>Will we need to discuss exemptions?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:24:13] <racor>-1, superflous not of any importance

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:24:20] <tibbs>Circular dependencies was always an interesting one to me.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:24:23] <tibbs>+1

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:24:28] <spot>+1 from me

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:24:46] <tibbs>racor: What existing guideline does this duplicate?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:25:09] Quitrwmjones has left this server ("Closed connection").

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:25:12] <Rathann>it may be common sense, but common sense is sometimes most difficult to follow ;)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:25:28] <spot>with a +5, it passes

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:25:56] <spot>now, it seems like we might be able to reword the first paragraph of Packaging_font_bundles to make it more sensible

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:26:00] <abadger1999>Would it be better to phrase it as a MUST? ie: any package which bundles multiple separate upstream projects MUST justify that decision?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:26:10] <racor>tibbs: this sentence is a waste of text - whether this sentence is presence or not doesn't change anything

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:26:30] <tibbs>I don't follow your argument.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:26:52] <racor>upstreams don't care about what we decide

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:27:13] <racor>to new-comer packagers this text is not helpful

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:27:17] <racor>it's just bloat

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:27:24] Jointhemayor has joined this channel (n=jack@ool-18b8cdf4.dyn.optonline.net).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:27:32] <tibbs>It answers a question that has been asked of me several times already.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:27:57] <tibbs>I guess I could simply continue to answer as I wish, but I'd rather have an actual guideline. Which it seems we'll have.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:28:06] * rdieter is confused now, this guideline only describes downstream packaging, not much to do with upstreams at all

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:28:15] <racor>bring this to attention of major upstream projects - You'll be laughed at.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:28:23] <Rathann>racor: some upstreams start caring when we explain it to them

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:28:37] <spot>okay, so, if we replace the first paragraph of Packaging_font_bundles to "As noted in the Packaging Guidelines, Fedora packages should make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package. This applies equally to font packages."

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:29:08] <spot>then, leave the rest as is... i think that makes it more reasonable

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:29:22] <racor>Rathann: Do you care about SuSE, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo packaging desires in packages you are upstream? I don't.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:29:33] <rdieter>I'm still not sure about the "each bundled font set ends up in a different mono-licensed sub-package", that seems to be itching for a generalized rule too, no?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:29:45] <Rathann>racor: nobody laughed at me when I started packaging inchi separately from openbabel and submitted patches to fix building with external inchi

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:30:02] <racor>try glibc, try gcc, ...

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:30:39] <spot>rdieter: i think it makes some sense to do it that way for fonts specifically, especially if other applications want to rely on a single font

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:30:39] QuitNo5251 has left this server (Read error: 113 (No route to host)).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:30:57] <racor>anyway, i've got to quit now, sorry.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:31:06] <spot>they wouldn't need to Requires: foo-superfonts-dump, they could Requires: foo-superfonts-myfont

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:32:20] <rdieter>umm... do apps really need to care about the fonts used licensing-wise?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:32:40] <rdieter>if so, doesn't that get very scary, very fast?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:32:44] <spot>rdieter: generally, no, but it does make for a reasonable divisor

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:33:18] <Rathann>but licensing is a good reason for splitting packages in general

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:33:39] <Rathann>i.e. foo licensed under GPL and foo-libs under LGPL

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:33:51] <Rathann>assuming that's what upstream does

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:34:06] <Rathann>or foo-someplugin under another license (say, BSD)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:34:18] Joinsonarguy has joined this channel (n=Who_Know@fedora/sonarguy).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:34:41] <abadger1999>You have my +1 to this.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:34:50] <abadger1999>Electrician is here, gotta run.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:34:50] Quitmbonnet has left this server ("Ex-Chat").

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:35:06] <Rathann>I wouldn't put so much stress on packaging fonts separately due to licensing issues, it is a more general thing

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:35:23] <spot>take a look at this:

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:35:25] <spot>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Packaging_Font_Bundles2

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:36:10] <tibbs>The first MUST there implies that this guidelines is stronger than the general one.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:36:41] <Rathann>doesn't say why, though

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:36:45] <tibbs>Is that still the intention, or is this just supposed to be a clarification of the other guideline as it applies to fonts?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:36:51] <delero>this means ONE font per subpackage ?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:36:59] <Rathann>delero: one font family

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:37:01] <spot>delero: font family

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:37:01] Joinrwmjones has joined this channel (n=rwmjones@87-127-66-208.no-dns-yet.enta.net).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:37:32] * rdieter likes that draft more. happy happy

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:37:44] <spot>i think this is a clarfication for fonts

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:38:13] <Rathann>well if it's phrased that way, it becomes redundant

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:38:22] <Rathann>the first paragraph

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:38:32] QuitSonar_Guy has left this server (Connection timed out).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:38:43] <Rathann>but +1 too

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:38:46] <delero>I assume this would apply to a package like gnuplot, which ships postscripts fonts

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:39:11] <rdieter>not this draft, afaict, the other one... maybe. :)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:39:14] <Rathann>delero: but does it make sense to use them outside gnuplot?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:39:17] Joinmbonnet has joined this channel (n=mikeb@nat/redhat/x-81080bc24eb4b95f).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:40:04] <spot>well, should we take a vote on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Packaging_Font_Bundles2 ?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:40:05] <delero>Rathann: unlikely

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:40:21] <Rathann>I wouldn't want to force any package to split their fonts if it doesn't make sense to use them outside their apps

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:40:24] <spot>keep in mind that all reasonable exceptions are okay.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:40:32] <spot>(as always)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:40:46] <rdieter>spot: +1 P_F_B2 draft

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:40:53] <delero>spot: +1 on v2 draft

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:40:56] <spot>+1 from me

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:40:59] <Rathann>+1 on v2 draft

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:41:18] <spot>abadger1999: gave us a +1 before he left... tibbs?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:42:04] <tibbs>I guess I don't really understand why it mandates a split by license, but I don't have any real problems with it.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:42:10] <tibbs>+1

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:42:15] <spot>tibbs: it doesn't mandate that anymore

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:42:29] <spot>i changed it to read "make sure each bundled font set ends up in a different, appropriately licensed sub-package. "

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:42:33] Joinsdziallas has joined this channel (n=sebastia@p57A2E7C1.dip.t-dialin.net).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:42:37] <Rathann>rather, splitting by license is a general "should, if makes sense"

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:42:48] <tibbs>I've been reloading but I don't see the change.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:42:49] <Rathann>not only with fonts

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:42:58] <spot>tibbs: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/Packaging_Font_Bundles2 ?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:43:05] <tibbs>I'm still seeing "but he MUST make sure each bundled font..."

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:43:08] <spot>note that i made a copy with changes for v2

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:43:20] <tibbs>Yeah, I'm looking at v2.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:43:41] <spot>If upstream refuses the packager MAY base a single src.rpm on the collection archive, but he MUST make sure each bundled font set ends up in a different, appropriately licensed sub-package.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:44:01] <spot>old version said "If upstream refuses the packager MAY base a single src.rpm on the collection archive, but he MUST make sure each bundled font set ends up in a different mono-licensed sub-package."

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:44:53] <spot>anyways, thats +6

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:45:21] <spot>i can't think of a quick way to reword No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages in such a way that it would be acceptable

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:45:53] <spot>well, i take that back

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:45:59] <spot>maybe if we changed item 1 to

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:46:45] <spot>1. any package that makes use of fonts should strongly consider packaging them in a separate sub-package, if they have any value outside of the package

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:46:53] <rdieter>item 2 isn't really a MUST, just a pointer

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:47:43] <Rathann>spot: I'm fine with a MUST in your modified version even

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:47:52] <spot>yeah, but if it makes people think about font licenses, i'm not opposed to it

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:48:31] <rdieter>spot: your version of 1 is a lot better, likey likey

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:48:38] Joinhansg has joined this channel (n=hans@ip32-174-211-87.adsl2.static.versatel.nl).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:48:44] <hansg>Hi all

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:48:46] <Rathann>also if such font has value outside the application, maybe ask upstream to publish font source separately?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:48:50] <hansg>I just saw spot's invitation

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:49:03] <hansg>any votes needed from me, or did we already have the quorum?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:49:04] <spot>hansg: you're not too late, we're just going through the last pending draft

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:49:09] <Rathann>hansg: we're discussing http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:49:15] <hansg>-1

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:49:22] <spot>hansg: we're trying to fix it. :)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:49:30] <Rathann><spot> maybe if we changed item 1 to

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:49:30] <Rathann><spot> 1. any package that makes use of fonts should strongly consider packaging them in a separate sub-package, if they have any value outside of the package

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:49:31] <hansg>For reasons already mentioned

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:50:45] <Rathann>well? any comments on my suggestion?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:50:54] <spot>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:50:58] <spot>take a look at that

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:51:13] <spot>Rathann: i'm on the fence as to whether it should be a "SHOULD" or a "MUST"

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:51:19] <spot>i can see both sides of that argument

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:51:41] <spot>(i'm leaning towards a must, as a sub-package)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:52:01] <Rathann>spot: no, I mean the other suggestion ;)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:52:14] <Rathann>I said I was fine with either should or must here

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:52:17] <spot>oh yes, that is good, i'll add it

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:52:21] <hansg>Hmm, just read Spot's draft I dunno what to think of this

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:52:50] <Rathann>hansg: it's just the 1st point that's different

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:53:02] <Rathann>I think that was the main contention

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:53:26] <hansg>All in all it seems well balanced between making clear that generic fonts must be packaged separately and that specials could be bundled

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:53:58] <hansg>I would like to see some language in here about how this all applies only to fonts in font format.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:54:12] <Rathann>"fonts in font format"?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:54:27] <tibbs>Think back to my earlier question.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:54:33] <Rathann>hansg: the last paragraph is not enough?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:54:34] <hansg>Games often package fonts as just a bmp which when you lay a 64x64 grid over it you get each letter

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:54:42] <Rathann>ah

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:54:47] <Rathann>then the first solves it

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:54:49] <hansg>or on XxX format for that mayyer

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:54:51] <spot>okay, i added Rathann's suggestion: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:55:27] <spot>hansg: if i made it say "bundled font files"

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:55:31] <spot>would that be more appropriate?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:55:42] <spot>or "bundled fonts (in font format)"

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:55:46] Quitchacha_chaudhry has left this server (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:55:56] <hansg>I'm not sure about the "any value outside of the package " wording, that is a bit vagu

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:56:00] <hansg>vague I mean

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:56:08] <hansg>Spot, +1 for "bundled font files"

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:56:13] <hansg>That is better IMHO

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:56:55] <hansg>And maybe we should replace the "any value outside of the package " wording by a list of formats and a MUST be in a subpackage if in one of these formats

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:57:06] <Rathann>hansg: it's not just formats

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:57:12] <Rathann>it's also the usability

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:57:21] <hansg>For example if a game has some special font created for it in ttf, it would be good to put it in a sub package so that it can be used more general

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:57:34] <hansg>(assuming the licensing is ok)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:57:41] <hansg>Rathann, explain

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:57:52] <Rathann>it doesn't make sense if such font contains just a limited subset of characters or symbols which is usable only in that game

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:58:03] <rdieter>hansg: but "good" for who? if no one can/will ever use it?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:58:19] <Rathann>hence it also needs to be usable outside the original application

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:58:20] <hansg>Rathann, ah yes

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:58:46] <hansg>rdieter, will never use it just a matter of advertising, can never user it is another story

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:58:59] <spot>how about something like "especially if the font is in a standardized format, and contains a set of characters or symbols which are useful for other packages."

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:59:04] <hansg>Ok, lets stick with the "any value outside of the package "

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:59:10] <hansg>spot +1

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:59:28] <hansg>(although that violates the less is more principle)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [12:59:51] <spot>it does, and i think the "any value outside of the package" is actually broader.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:00:08] <hansg>I'm fine with keeping just "any value outside of the package "

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:00:21] * Rathann is fine with either

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:00:33] <Rathann>obviously some people need explaining the spirit of the rule ;)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:00:47] Partsmooge has left this channel ("-ENOTIME").

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:01:04] <Rathann>so more precise language won't hurt IMHO

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:01:31] <spot>how about this

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:01:32] <spot>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:01:36] <spot>i added it as a clarifier

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:02:03] <tibbs>Seems OK to me.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:02:08] <Rathann>yup

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:02:11] <delero>excellent

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:02:20] <tibbs>I wonder whether we're still within the spirit of the original draft which was submitted.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:02:34] Joinke4qqq_ has joined this channel (n=ke4qqq@64.89.94.194.nw.nuvox.net).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:02:37] <spot>well, we'll hear back for sure if we're not.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:02:40] <spot>i think we are

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:02:47] <hansg>spot, good, about font source, its that mandatory, or does it depend on the font license?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:02:48] <Rathann>I think so too

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:02:55] <Rathann>we just added some common sense ;)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:03:18] <spot>hansg: not sure i follow

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:03:32] <Rathann>hansg: you mean the point about asking upstream to publish font source separately?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:03:40] <Rathann>it's not mandatory

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:03:59] <hansg>Well if someone designed a font for project X and gave project X just the .ttf file and a license to do whatever they want with the ttf, there will be no font source

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:04:18] <spot>how about i change that to just "font files"

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:04:22] <spot>not "font source"

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:04:28] <spot>to eliminate confusion

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:04:30] <Rathann>yes

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:04:34] <Rathann>that's what I meant

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:04:37] <hansg>spot, hmm yes and no

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:04:59] <hansg>We do want the preferable format for modification when available

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:05:04] Partdelero has left this channel.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:05:09] <spot>hansg: yes, but thats a licensing issue

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:05:13] <Rathann>the idea is that generally useful fonts should migrate to separate packages alltogether

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:05:24] QuitKageSenshi has left this server (Remote closed the connection).

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:05:37] <Rathann>hence my suggestion to ask upstream to publish font files

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:05:45] <hansg>spot again yes and no, it can be that we don't need the font "source" from a license pov, that doesn't mean we don't want it if available

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:06:03] <spot>by not specifying, we can safely assume we want source

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:06:12] <hansg>true

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:06:17] <spot>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages2

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:06:25] <spot>it now says "font files" on that line

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:06:40] <spot>guys, i need to dash off to the board meeting

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:06:44] <spot>can we vote on this quickly?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:06:44] <Rathann>hansg: but isn't that is already in font packaging guidelines?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:07:01] <rdieter>spot: +1 to v2

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:07:02] <spot>+1 from me

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:07:05] <hansg>+1

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:07:05] <Rathann>hansg: "Fonts SHOULD be built from source whenever upstream provides them in a source format"

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:07:09] <tibbs>+1

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:07:10] <Rathann>+1 from me

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:07:39] <spot>do we have quorum? delero dropped...

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:07:45] <hansg>Rathann, we should add: "if upstream does not provides them in a source format, the packager should contact upstream and ask them to provide source if possible"

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:07:48] <spot>wait, that is +5

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:07:59] <spot>ok, it passes.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:08:00] <hansg>yes thats enouh, right??

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:08:13] <spot>and with that i have to go to the board call

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:08:15] <Rathann>hansg: that is fine by me

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:08:18] <spot>thanks guys

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:08:24] <Rathann>thanks spot ;)

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:08:24] * hansg wonders why my typing is even lousier then normal

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:08:34] <spot>i'll update the todo page this afternoon

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:09:56] <tibbs>I will try to get minutes out today; with the FESCo move, we have no way to make their 24 hour deadline.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:12:43] <hansg>well that was short (for me) when is the next meeting?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:17:25] <Rathann>hansg: we should discuss the possible times and choose one that works well for everyone if possible, current one was difficult for me until recently

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:18:08] <hansg>Didn't we try that by using a wiki page were we all wrote down what worked, and then failed?

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:18:13] <Rathann>and I won't know until next week if it continues to be

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:18:45] <tibbs>The problem seems to be that there's always some kind of conflict.

[Tue Aug 26 2008] [13:33:02] <abadger1999>tibbs: FTR, I'm +1 to spots revised fonts guideline.