#174 Noto package splitting
Closed: Fixed by tagoh. Opened by tagoh.

Upstream has decided to split their repositories per scripts and, thus, has separate releases. according to that, we need to split source packages per scripts. There may be some issues to proceed this.

  1. Too many source repositories.
    Currently google-noto-fonts has >300 sub-packages. the source package might be split up to >100. To distribute the maintenance costs, it may be a good idea to maintain packages by the dedicated group.
  2. Needing a lot of resources to accomplish the package reviews.
    Due to splitting, we need to proceed the package review for new package. definitely needing some volunteers for >100 package reviews.

This ticket aims to discuss about noto splitting. any questions and concerns are welcome.

This splitting is targeting to f38 so far.


Metadata Update from @pnemade:
- Issue assigned to tagoh

Few suggestions:
1) Prepare this work in some copr repo where we can test it
2) Maybe we can submit F38 Change
3) I remember sometime back https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266336 I found mass review exception implemented. Maybe we need to check with packaging-committee again if we can get mass review exception

[Edit] found the doc link https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Review_Process_Exemption_Procedure

Aha. that's good to know. yeah, this change may be worth proposing that exception right.

a tool isn't yet ready which definitely helps this task because there are too much sub-projects in upstream and writing everything by hand isn't realistic.
However, we can pick up some base fonts and move forward by hand for experimental.

Noto upstream has made a monthly release of Noto fonts, and we have updated our google-noto-fonts package with it. hence, we may not need to split our packages at this moment.

I'll close this ticket so far.

Metadata Update from @tagoh:
- Issue close_status updated to: Fixed
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

This issue has been migrated to Fedora Forge:
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/i18n/i18n/issues/174

Please continue any further discussion there.

Metadata