[Bug 499634] ghostscript files point to nonexisting files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499634 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.20080710-7.fc11 Resolution||ERRATA -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 13019] add fc-query
http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13019 Behdad Esfahbod freedesk...@behdad.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED --- Comment #5 from Behdad Esfahbod freedesk...@behdad.org 2009-06-24 12:36:06 PST --- I believe I've fixed this in 2.7.0. Please reopen otherwise. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 468193] Chinese fonts have changed file name
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468193 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-06-24 15:39:53 EDT --- cjkuni-fonts-0.2.20080216.1-24.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update cjkuni-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-6832 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
rpms/pango/devel .cvsignore, 1.87, 1.88 pango.spec, 1.161, 1.162 sources, 1.88, 1.89
Author: behdad
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/pango/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv25237
Modified Files:
.cvsignore pango.spec sources
Log Message:
Update to 1.24.3
Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/pango/devel/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.87
retrieving revision 1.88
diff -u -p -r1.87 -r1.88
--- .cvsignore 16 May 2009 00:27:32 - 1.87
+++ .cvsignore 24 Jun 2009 20:09:50 - 1.88
@@ -1 +1 @@
-pango-1.24.2.tar.bz2
+pango-1.24.3.tar.bz2
Index: pango.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/pango/devel/pango.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.161
retrieving revision 1.162
diff -u -p -r1.161 -r1.162
--- pango.spec 16 May 2009 00:27:32 - 1.161
+++ pango.spec 24 Jun 2009 20:09:50 - 1.162
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
Summary: System for layout and rendering of internationalized text
Name: pango
-Version: 1.24.2
+Version: 1.24.3
Release: 1%{?dist}
License: LGPLv2+
Group: System Environment/Libraries
@@ -225,6 +225,9 @@ fi
%changelog
+* Wed Jun 24 2009 Behdad Esfahbod besfa...@redhat.com - 1.24.3-1
+- Update to 1.24.3
+
* Fri May 15 2009 Karsten Hopp kars...@redhat.com 1.24.2-1
- Update to 1.24.2
- See http://download.gnome.org/sources/pango/1.24/pango-1.24.2.news
Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/pango/devel/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.88
retrieving revision 1.89
diff -u -p -r1.88 -r1.89
--- sources 16 May 2009 00:27:32 - 1.88
+++ sources 24 Jun 2009 20:09:50 - 1.89
@@ -1 +1 @@
-7bc6c884d847cabc613e4c6d663771f5 pango-1.24.2.tar.bz2
+63979efe16fe5abaa93c8ea48959e8f3 pango-1.24.3.tar.bz2
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477371] [cave9] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477371
--- Comment #23 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-06-24
16:17:12 EDT ---
1. you forgot to remove the
%dir %{_fontdir}
line (though at this stage it's harmless, just spec pollution)
2. Please use a fontconfig prefix in the 60-64 range, 50 would be a
high-priority font (fantasy can be pretty much anything, but it'd be a shame
to put a font with no bold and no italic first)
3. is there a reason you only use half of
/usr/share/fontconfig/templates/basic-font-template.conf ???
I know the two blocks in there seem very similar, but they have different
affects and are not redundant.
4. you should put data_README.txt as doc in both packages, since it covers
licensing for files that will end up in cave9-mutante-fonts and cave9 packages
Though 1 and 4 do not precisely concern the font subpackage, so you may ignore
me there :p I'm a terrible perfectionist.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 507501] Review Request: inkboy-fonts - a simple clean latin font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507501 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net |radf...@blackbean.org Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-06-24 16:43:02 EDT --- 1. For multiarch packages you'll find out it's better not to change the timestamp of txt files during encoding conversion (that's why the other spec had a touch). But for a noarch package, in %doc, I guess no one cares a lot 2. Please do include OFL-FAQ.txt as %doc too, even though OFL.txt is the main legal document the FAQ has some legal value. And it's not big I won't force another back-and-forth for 2. but do fix it before cvs import ☀☀☀ APPROVED ☀☀☀ The review is finished and you're now on you own to build, push and register your package everywhere it matters. Your next steps are documented on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a Thank you for packaging a new Fedora font! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 507615] Review request: Vemana2000-fonts Unicode compliant OpenType font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507615 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|sshed...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-06-24 17:22:24 EDT --- 1. not sure if it should be classified as sans-serif, I guess it's up for Telugu users to decide 2. Please work a bit more on the package summary (at minimum, start with A free OpenType font not Its Free OpenType font) 3. Fontforge complains a lot about this TTF file. It seems it was created by copying Pothana2000, and it still declares Pothana2000 all over the place. Please ask politely upstream to clean up the font metadata (remove the restricted bit, change the Pothana2000 strings to Vemana2000, change the font style to Regular or whatever standard style is appropriate). You can even do it yourself with Fedora's fontforge and send the fixed file upstream if the author agrees (I see I had noted the non-standard style for Pothana2000 too, even though it's less broken metadata-side than Vemana200). However, none of this is strictly speaking rpm packaging, so I'll approve the package and let you deal with the TTF bugs as the font Fedora packager :p ☘☘☘ APPROVED ☘☘☘ This review is finished and you're now on you own to build, push and register your package everywhere it matters. Your next steps are documented on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a Thank you for packaging a new Fedora font! Do it again please :) If you still need sponsoring, apply to the Packager group in FAS and post your login here, so I can sponsor you. If you have questions or need more help, don't hesitate to ask questions in ##fonts or ##fedora-devel or on the fonts sig mailing list http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_mailing_lists -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 507501] Review Request: inkboy-fonts - a simple clean latin font
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=507501 Jim Radford radf...@blackbean.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jim Radford radf...@blackbean.org 2009-06-24 17:53:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) 1. For multiarch packages you'll find out it's better not to change the timestamp of txt files during encoding conversion (that's why the other spec had a touch). But for a noarch package, in %doc, I guess no one cares a lot I agree it doesn't matter for noarch, but I preserved them anyway. 2. Please do include OFL-FAQ.txt as %doc too, even though OFL.txt is the main legal document the FAQ has some legal value. And it's not big I agree. Fixed. Thank you for packaging a new Fedora font! You're welcome. Spec URL: http://blackbean.org/review/inkboy-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://blackbean.org/review/inkboy-fonts-20070624-3.fc11.src.rpm New Package CVS Request === Package Name: inkboy-fonts Short Description: A clean and usable latin fantasy font Owners: radford Branches: F-11 InitialCC: font-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477371] [cave9] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477371 --- Comment #24 from Victor Bogado bog...@bogado.net 2009-06-24 19:00:38 EDT --- When I first picked '50' I thought it was a low priority. The problem is that I just that I don't understand this configuration file, this was the reason for removing the other half also, I thought it was redundant, silly me. Perfectionism is good, the quality of fedora depends on this, that's why I'm making sure that everything is Ok before building and publishing the package. :-) I think I got it now : http://static.bogado.net/rpm/cave9-0.3-8.bog11.src.rpm http://static.bogado.net/rpm/cave9.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
