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

--- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway <>  2009-02-04 
09:52:50 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)

> ? Multiple different families are in the same upstream archive.  They share a
> release date, but the subpackages have different Versions.  Additionally, as
> stated above, one of the font families has a different license.  Can you check
> with upstream about splitting these into one-archive-per-family?  It would
> probably be better to split at least the one non-GPL font into a different
> archive, and probably a different SRPM altogether.

I can check, but that would effectively be 15 zip files instead of just one. If
it were me, I wouldn't do it. :)

Upstream is probably unaware of the GPL incompatibility with the Bitstream Vera
derived font. Font licensing compatibility is poorly understood.

> + Each family is in a separate subpackage.
> + naming follows projectname-fontfamilyname-fonts
> - SHOULD be built from sources, but font spec template says "For GPLed or
> LGPLed fonts this is required by the license."  %build section is empty.  Is
> TTF the preferred source for modifying/building these fonts?  If not, where is
> the source?

TTF is typically the preferred source for modifying fonts, with tools like

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