Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Jochen Schmitt <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |
         AssignedTo|    |
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Jochen Schmitt <>  2009-01-29 
14:46:05 EDT ---
+ Basename of the SPEC files matches with package name
+ Package names matches with nameing guidelines for font packages
+ Package zip files matches with upstream
(md5sum: 25106eaf88416df3006925b8383b7f69)
+ Package contains valid License tag
+ License tag specified OFL as a valid font license for Fedora
+ Package contains verbatin copy of the license text
+ Package contains proper rpm group
+ Package contains proper buildroot defintion
+ Proper definition of BRs and Reqs.
+ Fonts subpackage contains Req to common subpackages
+ Filelist doesn't contains duplicate files
+ Files have proper file permissions
+ Package contains no files belong to other packages
+ All packaged file are owned by this package
+ Rpmlint is ok for source and binary rpms.
+ Local build works fine
+ Local install works fine
+ Fonts was shown on fc-list
+ Local uninstall works fine
+ Koji build works fine
+ %doc stanza is only in common subpackage which is required on all other
+ Package has proper %changelog stanza

- I can't figure out on which base you have determinate the upstream
version of the font
- Fonts are not built from sources because upstream doesn't provides one

Configure bugmail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Fedora-package-review mailing list

Reply via email to