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=483865 --- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcall...@redhat.com> 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 fontforge. -- 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 Fedoraemail@example.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review