Hi all, When conf.avail was introduced in fontconfig we at Fedora mostly ignored it and let font packages install their fontconfig rules directly in conf.d http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsSpecTemplate (the exception being the fontconfig package itself who perforce followed the new conventions). Recent events made me revisit this point and try to heal the rift between fontconfig and font packages by following common conventions. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correction_(fontconfig) In the course of the examination of this guideline change proposal, however, it was identified that conf.avail as currently designed causes our rpmlint package sanity check tool to emit errors. Those errors were ok for Behdad to ignore, but really not ok for general packaging guidelines we want to put into newbie packager hands. The core reason are that since we deploy policy through those fontconfig files, we absolutely do not want users to change them (they''re free to un-reference the files in conf.d, or write their own fontconfig rules in different files, but we instruct rpm to stomp on old versions of our files on updates). Since we mark those files as non-modifiable (%config and not %config(noreplace) in rpm speak) rpmlint considers them as data, not configuration, and complains of their location under /etc. After thinking a bit about it I feel rpmlint is right ? since we don''t let users modify our fontconfig files they''re not dynamic configuration, just static data users can choose to activate or not. We could of course add an exception in rpmlint just for conf.avail, but I''d rather have fontconfig be fixed to follow more closely the FHS. Exceptions ultimately pile on till you have a lot of cruft to clean up which is not my definition of fun. Can conf.avail and its contents be moved in /usr/share/something in the next version of fontconfig? See also: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021 Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/fontconfig/attachments/20081026/10017535/attachment.pgp
Ping? Le dimanche 26 octobre 2008 ? 21:30 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit :> Hi all, > > When conf.avail was introduced in fontconfig we at Fedora mostly ignored > it and let font packages install their fontconfig rules directly in > conf.d > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsSpecTemplate > (the exception being the fontconfig package itself who perforce followed > the new conventions). > > Recent events made me revisit this point and try to heal the rift > between fontconfig and font packages by following common conventions. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correction_(fontconfig) > > In the course of the examination of this guideline change proposal, > however, it was identified that conf.avail as currently designed causes > our rpmlint package sanity check tool to emit errors. Those errors were > ok for Behdad to ignore, but really not ok for general packaging > guidelines we want to put into newbie packager hands. > > The core reason are that since we deploy policy through those fontconfig > files, we absolutely do not want users to change them (they''re free to > un-reference the files in conf.d, or write their own fontconfig rules in > different files, but we instruct rpm to stomp on old versions of our > files on updates). Since we mark those files as non-modifiable (%config > and not %config(noreplace) in rpm speak) rpmlint considers them as data, > not configuration, and complains of their location under /etc. > > After thinking a bit about it I feel rpmlint is right ? since we don''t > let users modify our fontconfig files they''re not dynamic configuration, > just static data users can choose to activate or not. > > We could of course add an exception in rpmlint just for conf.avail, but > I''d rather have fontconfig be fixed to follow more closely the FHS. > Exceptions ultimately pile on till you have a lot of cruft to clean up > which is not my definition of fun. > > Can conf.avail and its contents be moved in /usr/share/something in the > next version of fontconfig? > > See also: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021 > > Regards, >-- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/fontconfig/attachments/20081117/30474c3c/attachment.pgp
I''m fine with this change. Next fontconfig release should happen sometime this winter I guess. I''ll make this change in my tree that I will then make available to Keith for review and release. behdad Nicolas Mailhot wrote:> Ping? > > Le dimanche 26 octobre 2008 ? 21:30 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : >> Hi all, >> >> When conf.avail was introduced in fontconfig we at Fedora mostly ignored >> it and let font packages install their fontconfig rules directly in >> conf.d >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsSpecTemplate >> (the exception being the fontconfig package itself who perforce followed >> the new conventions). >> >> Recent events made me revisit this point and try to heal the rift >> between fontconfig and font packages by following common conventions. >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correction_(fontconfig) >> >> In the course of the examination of this guideline change proposal, >> however, it was identified that conf.avail as currently designed causes >> our rpmlint package sanity check tool to emit errors. Those errors were >> ok for Behdad to ignore, but really not ok for general packaging >> guidelines we want to put into newbie packager hands. >> >> The core reason are that since we deploy policy through those fontconfig >> files, we absolutely do not want users to change them (they''re free to >> un-reference the files in conf.d, or write their own fontconfig rules in >> different files, but we instruct rpm to stomp on old versions of our >> files on updates). Since we mark those files as non-modifiable (%config >> and not %config(noreplace) in rpm speak) rpmlint considers them as data, >> not configuration, and complains of their location under /etc. >> >> After thinking a bit about it I feel rpmlint is right ? since we don''t >> let users modify our fontconfig files they''re not dynamic configuration, >> just static data users can choose to activate or not. >> >> We could of course add an exception in rpmlint just for conf.avail, but >> I''d rather have fontconfig be fixed to follow more closely the FHS. >> Exceptions ultimately pile on till you have a lot of cruft to clean up >> which is not my definition of fun. >> >> Can conf.avail and its contents be moved in /usr/share/something in the >> next version of fontconfig? >> >> See also: >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021 >> >> Regards, >>
> >> Can conf.avail and its contents be moved in /usr/share/something in the > >> next version of fontconfig?So to make the discussion more concrete what is the suggested new path? /usr/share/fonts/conf.avail/ or /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/ or ? Jens
Le mardi 18 novembre 2008 ? 23:04 -0500, Jens Petersen a ?crit :> > >> Can conf.avail and its contents be moved in /usr/share/something in the > > >> next version of fontconfig? > > So to make the discussion more concrete what is the suggested new path? > /usr/share/fonts/conf.avail/ or /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/ or ?(19:02:33) nim-nim: behdad: do you have an idea of the directory name you''ll use, so I can put it in my macro package? (19:03:13) behdad: /usr/share/fontconfig/fonts.avail sounds right to me (19:03:23) behdad: specially that it''s not used in any applications. (19:03:33) behdad: just as symlink targets. so I''m comfortable having fontconfig in the name (19:03:45) behdad: s/fonts.avail/conf.avail -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/fontconfig/attachments/20081119/005a3438/attachment.pgp