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=482993


Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mail...@laposte.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org    |rooz...@gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mail...@laposte.net>  2009-01-29 
17:07:11 EDT ---
1. probably better to use -n with %setup instead of using -c and playing mv
games

2. Please consider

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#Do_I_need_to_Provide_my_old_package_names.3F

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#What_if_the_new_naming_guidelines_require_me_to_rename_my_source_package.3F

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#Am_I_done_after_creating_a_new_fonts_.28sub.29package_or_renaming_an_existing_one.3F

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#The_fontconfig_stuff_the_font_guidelines_suggest_seems_complex._Can_I_skip_it.3F

However, despite the uglyness associated to 1., the package and upgrade path
works.

⬕⬕⬕ APPROVED ⬕⬕⬕

-- 
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-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to