On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> Where's the code? The github link seems to be broken.
Sorry for the delay on that. The code is now here:
https://github.com/tchollingsworth/ttname
And it's already in Rawhide, F20, and F18-19 updates-testing.
See the announcement here
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 04:52:53PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Dim 4 août 2013 10:44, Till Maas a écrit :
> > The guideline should be to ask upstream to fix the meta data. In case of
> > missing license text (e.g. source code with a GPL header but no copy of
> > the GPL itself), it is al
Le Mar 6 août 2013 23:48, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit :
> There's already some example instructions on how to use ttname here,
> which accurately reflects the CLI interface as it is now implemented:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/ttname
also please keep the fonts list in CC when di
Le Dim 4 août 2013 10:44, Till Maas a écrit :
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 07:54:38PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>> Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 19:26, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit :
>
>> > AFAICS it shouldn't be too hard to script up something so this would
>> > as easy as `fixfontmd --copyright "$(he
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:23 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth
wrote:
> I wasn't aware Debian already exported a directory for this. (But
> "/javascripts", really?) It would be nice if they wrote that into
> their policy.
I was slightly wrong: it's "/javascript" (singular). I couldn't find
any formal Debi
On 08/14/2013 07:34 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Robert Marcano
wrote:
On 08/12/2013 03:23 PM, Robert Marcano wrote:
This is a better explanation of why the use /usr/share/javascript: We
want to be compatible with others distribution that have the legacy ide
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Robert Marcano
wrote:
> On 08/12/2013 03:23 PM, Robert Marcano wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is a better explanation of why the use /usr/share/javascript: We
>> want to be compatible with others distribution that have the legacy idea
>> that JavaScript is a browser only thi
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Robert Marcano
wrote:
> This is a better explanation of why the use /usr/share/javascript: We want
> to be compatible with others distribution that have the legacy idea that
> JavaScript is a browser only thing, so in this directory we will only store
> JavaScript
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:23 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
> wrote:
>> Debian already uses /usr/share/javascript for this purpose, and it
>> would be really nice if we both could coordinate on getting some
>> upstream support for this in certain cases
On 08/12/2013 03:23 PM, Robert Marcano wrote:
This is a better explanation of why the use /usr/share/javascript: We
want to be compatible with others distribution that have the legacy idea
that JavaScript is a browser only thing, so in this directory we will
only store JavaScript that run on the
On 08/09/2013 06:53 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Robert Marcano
wrote:
The directory is not called /usr/share/web-javascript, it is called
/usr/share/javascript, and the packaging guidelines draft explicitly says
that the intention is to avoid duplication of li
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:23 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
wrote:
> Debian already uses /usr/share/javascript for this purpose, and it
> would be really nice if we both could coordinate on getting some
> upstream support for this in certain cases. I'm very strongly -1
> against pointless Fedoraisms here.
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Robert Marcano
wrote:
> The directory is not called /usr/share/web-javascript, it is called
> /usr/share/javascript, and the packaging guidelines draft explicitly says
> that the intention is to avoid duplication of libraries, so it is calling to
> move all JavaScr
On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Robert Marcano
wrote:
> And I don't see a problems with those examples, because they share only
> their contents, by installing them you don't share content from other
> packages.
>
> Lets make an example of the mess this will create if I want to share a web
> appl
On 08/06/2013 05:10 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Robert Marcano wrote:
Do you know there are GNOME JavaScript applications? And that JavaScript is
being encouraged as a language for desktop applications? So all those
libraries that can be used on desktop and web
On 08/06/2013 02:36 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 22:57 -0430, Robert Marcano wrote:
Do you know there are GNOME JavaScript applications? And that
JavaScript is being encouraged as a language for desktop applications?
So all those libraries that can be used on desktop and web c
On 08/06/2013 10:46 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Robert Marcano wrote:
You make the decision by installing a js-foo package, just like you
make the decision to provide a web application by installing a package
for it.
"You make a decision by installing a package"
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Petr Vobornik wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Many web apps use an optimization technique where they try to minimize the
> number of httpd request by concatenating minified versions into one file.
> Example: app uses 20 tiny jQuery plugins.
>
> Similar use case is when app is u
Hello,
Many web apps use an optimization technique where they try to minimize
the number of httpd request by concatenating minified versions into one
file. Example: app uses 20 tiny jQuery plugins.
Similar use case is when app is using AMD modules and uses only a subset
of modules from a hug
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:50:01 -0700
"T.C. Hollingsworth" wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > If you are going to file a bunch of bugs, PLEASE see:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing
>
> I definitely will follow that, thanks!
>
> You might want to sh
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> If you are going to file a bunch of bugs, PLEASE see:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing
I definitely will follow that, thanks!
You might want to shout about that a little more widely, I think every
mass bug filing I'm aware of
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> Please provide actual recommendations about how to run the ttname
> command to the guidelines before filing bugs. And get the guideline
> approved to avoid unnecessary changes. Also this does not seem to be
> really a MUST guideline as long as it
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Robert Marcano wrote:
> Do you know there are GNOME JavaScript applications? And that JavaScript is
> being encouraged as a language for desktop applications? So all those
> libraries that can be used on desktop and web clients will be shared by
> default if I insta
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 22:57 -0430, Robert Marcano wrote:
> Do you know there are GNOME JavaScript applications? And that
> JavaScript is being encouraged as a language for desktop applications?
> So all those libraries that can be used on desktop and web clients
There's *very* little JavaScript c
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 17:48:23 +0200
Till Maas wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 03:05:21PM -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Till Maas
> > wrote:
> > > The guideline should be to ask upstream to fix the meta data. In
> > > case of missing license text (e.g. source
On Sun, Aug 04, 2013 at 03:05:21PM -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > The guideline should be to ask upstream to fix the meta data. In case of
> > missing license text (e.g. source code with a GPL header but no copy of
> > the GPL itself), it is
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:27 AM, Robert Marcano wrote:
>> You make the decision by installing a js-foo package, just like you
>> make the decision to provide a web application by installing a package
>> for it.
"You make a decision by installing a package" is a really problematic
model, e.g. becau
On Aug 3, 2013 8:55 PM, "T.C. Hollingsworth"
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Robert Marcano
> wrote:
> > On 07/26/2013 12:30 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >> Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 21:58, Robert Marcano a écrit :
> >>
> >>> The real problem with publishing things is that if I distribut
On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> The guideline should be to ask upstream to fix the meta data. In case of
> missing license text (e.g. source code with a GPL header but no copy of
> the GPL itself), it is also upstream's task to fix it and the packager's
> to ask for it. And if u
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:22:10PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 07/16/2013 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > > = Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets =
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets
> >
> > Can we please use a different name, like "webd
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 07:54:38PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 19:26, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit :
> > AFAICS it shouldn't be too hard to script up something so this would
> > as easy as `fixfontmd --copyright "$(head -n3 LICENSE)" --licensedesc
> > "$(cat LICENSE)" -
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Robert Marcano
wrote:
> On 07/26/2013 12:30 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 21:58, Robert Marcano a écrit :
>>
>>> The real problem with publishing things is that if I distribute binaries
>>> of many things I must follow the license, some say I
On 07/26/2013 12:30 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 21:58, Robert Marcano a écrit :
The real problem with publishing things is that if I distribute binaries
of many things I must follow the license, some say I need to distribute
sources, some say that I need to distribute a c
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 21:58, Robert Marcano a écrit :
> The real problem with publishing things is that if I distribute binaries
> of many things I must follow the license, some say I need to distribute
> sources, some say that I need to distribute a copy of the license, etc.
> Making files down
On 07/23/2013 12:56 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:07, Robert Marcano a écrit :
Fonts has licenses, some of them require the license to be shown or the
copyright displayed, some fonts has the copyright added to th
On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:20:39 -0700
"T.C. Hollingsworth" wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > So, this change has FPC guidelines and also some redhat-rpm-macros
> > changes?
>
> Yup, we just need to add a macro so it's available during
> createSRPMfromSCM in Koji. (T
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, this change has FPC guidelines and also some redhat-rpm-macros
> changes?
Yup, we just need to add a macro so it's available during
createSRPMfromSCM in Koji. (The conditionalized syntax we'd need
otherwise is just awful.)
> Do those nee
So, this change has FPC guidelines and also some redhat-rpm-macros
changes?
Do those need to be done before the mass rebuild?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 21:20, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit :
> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:45 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth
> wrote:
>> There are additionally 252 fonts in 128 packages that don't set the
>> "license description" field while setting the "copyright" field. [2]
>> These are probably fine, but
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:45 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth
wrote:
> There are additionally 252 fonts in 128 packages that don't set the
> "license description" field while setting the "copyright" field. [2]
> These are probably fine, but we might want to take a look over them
> anyway. (There are none
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
> Historically it was quite widespread. The only bit of font metadata one
> could rely on was the font name, and then not always. A font author would
> widely announce the relicensing of his font and not change the metadata in
> the font fil
Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 19:26, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit :
> Honestly, I'd prefer that we fixed this in Fedora. It solves this
> problem quite nicely, and I don't really think it's that widespread an
> issue anyway.
Historically it was quite widespread. The only bit of font metadata one
could r
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
> Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:07, Robert Marcano a écrit :
>> Fonts has licenses, some of them require the license to be shown or the
>> copyright displayed, some fonts has the copyright added to their
>> metadata, I don't find for example that
On 7/22/13, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 15:23 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 07/22/2013 12:31 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> >> Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The term "asset"
>> >> seems
>> >> to scar
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 15:23 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 07/22/2013 12:31 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The term "asset" seems
> >> to scare some people.
> >
> > Huh? It's a pretty commo
On 07/22/2013 11:11 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:07, Robert Marcano a écrit :
Fonts has licenses, some of them require the license to be shown or the
copyright displayed, some fonts has the copyright added to their
metadata, I don't find for example that gnu-free-serif-
On 07/19/2013 01:13 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Robert Marcano
wrote:
Not all fonts installed had the same licensing requirement, people install
fonts from other places that are not as careful as Fedora with the licenses.
It is problematic if someone install a
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:07, Robert Marcano a écrit :
> Fonts has licenses, some of them require the license to be shown or the
> copyright displayed, some fonts has the copyright added to their
> metadata, I don't find for example that gnu-free-serif-fonts says on
> it's metadata that is GPL+3
On 07/22/2013 12:31 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer wrote:
Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The term "asset" seems
to scare some people.
Huh? It's a pretty common industry term for "static bits used as
dependencies for websites". I've ne
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 12:31, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit :
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The term "asset"
>> seems
>> to scare some people.
>
> Huh? It's a pretty common industry term for "static bits used as
> dependencies
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Björn Persson
wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 07/16/2013 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> > = Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets =
>> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets
>>
>> Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The ter
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The term "asset" seems
> to scare some people.
Huh? It's a pretty common industry term for "static bits used as
dependencies for websites". I've never heard of anyone being scared
of it.
"webdata
Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 07/16/2013 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > = Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets =
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets
>
> Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The term "asset"
> seems to scare some people.
At least the direct
On 07/16/2013 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets
Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The term "asset"
seems to scare some people.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
--
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Minor comment: This copy of the text uses /assets ; the wiki page and
> the proposed policy uses both /assets and /_assets ; this should be
> cleared up.
>
> More importantly, is it OK to just take over a part of the server's
> URI namespac
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:51 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
wrote:
>> More importantly, is it OK to just take over a part of the server's
>> URI namespace like this?
> But "_assets/" does have the potential to clash a lot too. So how
> about "_sysassets/"?
I'm afraid I don't have enough relevant exper
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets
>
> Change owner(s): T.C. Hollingsworth
>
> == Detailed description ==
> A standard directory (/usr/share/assets) for static bits that are int
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Robert Marcano
wrote:
> Not all fonts installed had the same licensing requirement, people install
> fonts from other places that are not as careful as Fedora with the licenses.
> It is problematic if someone install a non free font to be used on their
> desktop ap
On 07/16/2013 06:24 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
...
Additionally the following symlinks will be provided:
* /usr/share/javascript -> /usr/share/assets/javascript
* /usr/share/fonts -> /usr/share/assets/fonts (so any Fedora font package can
be used as a web font)
Not all fonts installed had t
On 7/16/13, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 16/07/13 13:21, Björn Persson wrote:
>
>>> Additionally the following symlinks will be provided:
>>>
>>> * /usr/share/javascript -> /usr/share/assets/javascript
>>> * /usr/share/fonts -> /usr/share/assets/fonts (so any Fedora font
>>> package can be used as a web
On 16/07/13 13:21, Björn Persson wrote:
Additionally the following symlinks will be provided:
* /usr/share/javascript -> /usr/share/assets/javascript
* /usr/share/fonts -> /usr/share/assets/fonts (so any Fedora font
package can be used as a web font)
So all the fonts would be moved from /usr/
I think it's good to establish saner ways to package Javascript and
stuff, but this part puzzles me:
> Additionally the following symlinks will be provided:
>
> * /usr/share/javascript -> /usr/share/assets/javascript
> * /usr/share/fonts -> /usr/share/assets/fonts (so any Fedora font
> package ca
= Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets
Change owner(s): T.C. Hollingsworth
Traditionally, Fedora has been pushing bits from its various servers to
people's browsers in an ad-hoc fashion, and issues surrounding JavaScript have
been swept un
63 matches
Mail list logo
