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=530880 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot <[email protected]> 2009-11-04 04:13:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > 1. I used one of your spec files as a template, oops =). I have correct that > and am now using the template from fontpackages-devel. We used to package fonts that way but it was changed for Fedora 11 to accomodate the font autoinstaller and simplify things. > 2. Those were choices made by the creator and I didn't feel comfortable > changing them. I have corrected all of them. Thanks, > 3. The font name is not in either the Summary or the %description, only here > in > the Review Request. No action needed. It was in the spec file I checked. Maybe you published the wrong version? > 7. I ran repo-font-audit, rpmlint and fontlint correcting all but the warning > about the license. > > Will the license issue need to be corrected before this can pass review? No, this is not a blocker, just something it is a very good idea to fix upstream, as it confuses users when the licensing they see in font browsers is not the same the package declares (also I suppose that when Fedora does licensing audits it makes things a lot harder than it should be) -- 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 [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
