[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net | AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?(nob...@fedoraproj ||ect.org) --- Comment #34 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-11-28 12:32:26 EDT --- Ok, looking at this srpm, most of the warnings and errors are gone. Good! However: 1. (not blocking) fontlint does not like any of the resulting font files, they all need fixing but I guess it's not worse than before 2. (not blocking) the lucida typewriter files declare broken style naming that really needs fixing or apps won't be happy 3. (not blocking) all the files have almost-complete (but not complete) coverage of one or more unicode blocks (probably reflects unicode changes since they were last updated) 4. (blocking) License: Lucida is probably wrong for the base package, it should be GPLv2 and MIT 5. (not blocking) Requires: fontpackages-filesystem is not needed for the base package 6. (blocking) since the bitmap-fonts package does not exist anymore, it needs to be garbage-collected. Please add an Obsoletes: bitmap-fonts 0.3-14 to the bitmap-fixed-fonts subpackage (let's not be fancy, it's not worth it) It seems I was a little optimistic before, this package needs some tweaking yet. But it has progressed a lot -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(psatp...@redhat.c ||om) -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #35 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-11-28 12:35:03 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=374438) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=374438) repo-font-audit test results for this package -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(nob...@fedoraproj | |ect.org)| -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(nicolas.mail...@l | |aposte.net) | --- Comment #33 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-11-18 06:08:23 EDT --- You can build in rawhide however please do not close this, I need to find time to review the result properly and approve the merge review (unfortunately, it seems I'm a bit under water those past days) -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|Triaged | -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Triaged -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #32 from Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com 2009-11-18 00:28:37 EDT --- should i proceed with devel build? -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(nicolas.mail...@l ||aposte.net) -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #31 from Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com 2009-11-08 20:53:34 EDT --- updated srpm and spec http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts-0.3-14.fc12.src.rpm http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts.spec removed console8x8.pcf for now will try to solve problem in free time -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #30 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-11-04 04:16:57 EDT --- I didn't find anything else so far. Of course I add new tests regularly when a problem reports makes me realise there is something else that needs to be checked in existing packages. -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(psatp...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #28 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-11-03 14:28:52 EDT --- Please lift the NEEDINFO when you're ready to pass to the next stage -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(psatp...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #29 from Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com 2009-11-03 23:03:00 EDT --- i will resolve the above problem, will try to resolve it else will drop it. is anything to do more from my side? -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #27 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-10-23 04:40:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #26) yeah, fc-scan is giving wrong o/p for console8*8 font family name, looks some problem. we dont a source file for console8*8 Well, your choices for that file are : 1. drop it, wait for complains, ask whoever complains to fix the file 2. write a fontforge (or other) script to fix the file yourself at build time 3. enhance fontconfig to read the real font name (assuming it is present at all in the font file) 4. remap the font name in a fontconfig rule (see the remapping-font-template). But this is still a workaround, not a complete solution, and you'll get nagged every time the font audit scripts run Continuing to deploy a file that does not work in fontconfig is not acceptable, that sends the wrong message to third-parties. -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #24 from Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com 2009-10-22 05:07:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) 2. You have some stray fixed font in bitmap-console-fonts yep console9x15.pcf has written fontname FixedMedium in that case i think we will require Fixed subpackage, with this file included 3. Some of the files in bitmap-console-fonts declare their name as console8x8.pcf which is almost certainly a bug you are talking about fontname, or file name i did not found this in fontname, please provide bit more info. 4. The Lucida Typewriter fonts in bitmap-fonts should be pushed in a bitmap-lucida-typewriter-fonts subpackage in that case, bitmap-fonts rpm will be empty? 6. you can probably kill the common file and put each license %doc in the corresponding subpackage (just put the %doc line after the corresponding %_font_pkg call). You just need to have each subpackage require fontpackages-filesystem direcly so here we suppose to remove common package, also README will not require and put files for each subpackage in %doc, but we dont have any for console what to do for it? -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #25 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-10-22 05:27:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24) (In reply to comment #23) 3. Some of the files in bitmap-console-fonts declare their name as console8x8.pcf which is almost certainly a bug you are talking about fontname, or file name I'm talking about fontname as used by fontconfig (fc-query with the pkgkit format as used to generate rpm font metadata) 4. The Lucida Typewriter fonts in bitmap-fonts should be pushed in a bitmap-lucida-typewriter-fonts subpackage in that case, bitmap-fonts rpm will be empty? It is perfectly possible to have a srpm that only generates subpackages with different names. rpm will only generate a bitmap-fonts rpm from the bitmap-fonts srpm if you put some files in it 6. you can probably kill the common file and put each license %doc in the corresponding subpackage (just put the %doc line after the corresponding %_font_pkg call). You just need to have each subpackage require fontpackages-filesystem direcly so here we suppose to remove common package, also README will not require and put files for each subpackage in %doc, but we dont have any for console what to do for it? If you don't have any doc for console, I guess it will be a doc-less subpackage :) The main use of -common if when you have bulky shared documentation (very often, big pdf files in the font world) -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #26 from Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com 2009-10-23 01:09:01 EDT --- updates spec and srpm http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts.spec http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts-0.3-13.fc11.src.rpm yeah, fc-scan is giving wrong o/p for console8*8 font family name, looks some problem. we dont a source file for console8*8 -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #23 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-10-11 17:21:11 EDT --- 1. needs xorg-x11-font-utils as BR 2. You have some stray fixed font in bitmap-console-fonts 3. Some of the files in bitmap-console-fonts declare their name as console8x8.pcf which is almost certainly a bug 4. The Lucida Typewriter fonts in bitmap-fonts should be pushed in a bitmap-lucida-typewriter-fonts subpackage 5. It would be nice if each subpackage included its own fontconfig file 6. you can probably kill the common file and put each license %doc in the corresponding subpackage (just put the %doc line after the corresponding %_font_pkg call). You just need to have each subpackage require fontpackages-filesystem direcly -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #22 from Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com 2009-10-09 02:29:37 EDT --- just saw comment #9 , license for Console is given there update files are as follows http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts.spec http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts-0.3-12.fc11.src.rpm -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #20 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-10-08 09:32:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19) Licensing == * 10x20.bdf, 4x6.bdf, 5x7.bdf, 5x8.bdf, 6x10.bdf, 6x12.bdf, 6x13B.bdf, 6x13.bdf, 6x9.bdf, 7x14B.bdf, 7x14.bdf, 9x15B.bdf, 9x15.bdf, 9x18B.bdf, 9x18.bdf : Public Domain * fangsongti16.bdf, fangsongti24.bdf : MIT * lutBS*.bdf : Lucida and... lutRS*.bdf : Lucida -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #19 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-10-08 09:32:21 EDT --- Licensing == * 10x20.bdf, 4x6.bdf, 5x7.bdf, 5x8.bdf, 6x10.bdf, 6x12.bdf, 6x13B.bdf, 6x13.bdf, 6x9.bdf, 7x14B.bdf, 7x14.bdf, 9x15B.bdf, 9x15.bdf, 9x18B.bdf, 9x18.bdf : Public Domain * fangsongti16.bdf, fangsongti24.bdf : MIT * lutBS*.bdf : Lucida -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #21 from Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com 2009-10-09 00:57:52 EDT --- thanks for clarification bitmap fonts also has Console fonts from fixfont tarball README just says fonts from kdebase/konsole/fonts from kde 3.5 what will be the License of these fonts? -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Bug 225617 depends on bug 481068, which changed state. Bug 481068 Summary: bitmap-fonts needs updating to revised packaging guidelines https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481068 What|Old Value |New Value Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #18 from Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com 2009-10-08 01:25:27 EDT --- updated SPEC : http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts.spec updated SRPM : http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts-0.3-11.fc11.src.rpm different license for each subpackage is done in smc-fonts, but i am not sure about license of these fonts, please guide if anything -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #17 from Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com 2009-10-01 06:04:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) 3. your -fixed subpackage contains font files that declare themselves as Console. These should go in a console subpackage as it has only console fonts in it dropping this subpackage and will have bitmap-console-fonts subpackage 6. why do you add a Requires(pre): fontconfig ? We do not require fontconfig in font packages. Do you have a special need? 7. what do you need xorg-x11-font-utils as BR for ? 8. I think you can specify a different LICENSE field per subpackage, can you check with spot how he'd prefer the licensing reported ? (mixed licensing packages are a PITA) I feel if it'd be better if each subpackage was tagged with just the necessary license info (and included the corresponding license files) can you guide me little bit about what is exact LICENSES of fangsongati, just test is give but not mention which GPL version etc. 9. fontconfig will happily use pcf.gz files, please compress your pcf files (if you're feeling ambitious ask behdad if he intends to support pcf.xz soon) That's all for this first partial review, will look more in depth tomorrow ok, so fontdir will contain pcf.gz file, looks ok thanks for first review as we are targeting this for f13 we have some time now :) -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #12 from Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com 2009-09-30 04:58:59 EDT --- pasting review comment from bug 481068, pasting only important one --- Comment #8 From Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mail...@laposte.net) 2009-09-21 17:42:02 EDT (-) [reply] --- Private Well fc-scan shows that most of the bdf files declare themselves as Fixed, two of them think they are Fangsong ti and the others are not parsable by fc-scan. So you need at minimum a 1. a foo-fixed-fonts subpackage, 2. a foo-fangsong-ti-fonts subpackage, 3. and get Behdad to look at the other files and tell you if it's a bug his side or if the files need some form of fixing. Fontconfig won't be able to use them if it can't read the font name inside. The readme says they are Lucida but fontconfig does not read readmes. Also - it would be probably cleaner to package the ucs fonts in a ucs-fixed-fonts package instead of hiding their origin in a collection package - the licensing of Fangsong ti needs to be extracted from the fonts in a .txt people can actually read. Comment #13 From Pravin Satpute (psatp...@redhat.com) 2009-09-29 05:29:03 EDT (-) [reply] --- Private sorry for bit late update fc-scan works fine on all *.pcf files i have done suggested changes updated spec and srpm are as follows http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts/bitmap-fonts.spec http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts/bitmap-fonts-0.3-10.fc11.src.rpm also created a new package request for ucs-fixed-fonts bug 526204 -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #13 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-09-30 05:34:07 EDT --- I'll look at it this evening. Please make sure the font name appears in the package name (ucs-fixed-fonts, bitmap-fangsong-ti-fonts, etc) -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #14 from Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com 2009-09-30 07:16:40 EDT --- yep, font name appearing just instead of bitmap-fangsong-ti-fonts it is bitmap-fangsongti-fonts -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #15 from Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com 2009-09-30 07:18:47 EDT --- also as commented by Jens in comment #11 IMO we should plan from that direction also, otherwise it looks bad two Packages providing same Set of Fonts -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #16 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-09-30 18:40:37 EDT --- I need to look at it some more (got distracted by other bug requests, and this is a complex package), however here are some remarks 1. rpm will evaluate your %global even with # (why did you want to comment it out?) 2. common_desc should be a global too 3. your -fixed subpackage contains font files that declare themselves as Console. These should go in a console subpackage 4. not too sure if it'd be better to move console8x8 in its own subpackage or just rename or remap it (cf remapping template) 5. You can drop the duplicated Group: Applications/System lines, the main one will be inherited in modern rpm 6. why do you add a Requires(pre): fontconfig ? We do not require fontconfig in font packages. Do you have a special need? 7. what do you need xorg-x11-font-utils as BR for ? 8. I think you can specify a different LICENSE field per subpackage, can you check with spot how he'd prefer the licensing reported ? (mixed licensing packages are a PITA) I feel if it'd be better if each subpackage was tagged with just the necessary license info (and included the corresponding license files) 9. fontconfig will happily use pcf.gz files, please compress your pcf files (if you're feeling ambitious ask behdad if he intends to support pcf.xz soon) That's all for this first partial review, will look more in depth tomorrow -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||peter...@redhat.com --- Comment #11 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com 2009-09-22 01:48:42 EDT --- I am not sure about the importance of this package though it has been in the distro for a long time. Most of the fonts seem to be duplicated in xorg-x11-fonts. At least the ucs-fonts and lucidatypewriter are AFAICT. $ cd bitmap-fonts/devel/bitmap-fonts-0.3 $ find -name *.bdf | wc -l 33 $ for i in *.bdf; do find xorg-x11-fonts/devel/xorg-x11-fonts-7.2/font-misc-misc-1.0.0 -name $i ; done | wc -l 44 which only seems to really leave fangsongti. -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mc...@redhat.com Depends on||481068 -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||psatp...@redhat.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|psatp...@redhat.com -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Pravin Satpute psatp...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|psatp...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 --- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-05-16 05:25:26 EDT --- This package is currently a bundle of fonts collected from different sources with different licenses. Our font packaging guidelines would call for some splitting here (terminus-fonts is an example of mono-bitmap-font package) -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
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=225617 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- 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
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|182235 | nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-05-12 15:04 EST --- Lucida fonts are acceptable. If we modify the fonts in any way, we'll need to stop using the Lucida trademarks (similar to Bitstream Vera). The fixfonts appear to have come from KDE3's konsole application, and are licensed as GPLv2 (http://websvn.kde.org/tags/KDE/3.5.9/kdebase/konsole/). Use License: GPLv2 and Lucida Lifting FE-Legal. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED], fedora- ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] QAContact|fedora-package- |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Flag|fedora-review? | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED], ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-13 02:01 EST --- spot and nim-nim, Can you please help me to know legality of this package and its license name? Are Lucida fonts acceptable? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review-, |fedora-review? |needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |nfo)| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-02-12 07:28 EST --- looks like a stalled review. Taking ownership of this review and CC'ing to rbhalera who is new maintainer for this package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-13 21:22 EST --- User [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s account has been closed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225617
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:14 EST ---
bitmap-fonts-0.3-5.1.2.fc7 has the following things fixed...
(In reply to comment #1)
Random notes:
* rpmlint output:
W: bitmap-fonts invalid-license distributable
W: bitmap-fonts no-url-tag
W: bitmap-fonts-cjk invalid-license distributable
W: bitmap-fonts-cjk no-url-tag
W: bitmap-fonts-cjk no-documentation
* It seems that the Lucida fonts are not free software. See the LU_LEGALNOTICE
in the package.
* As this is actually three different set of fonts, the version (0.3) is quite
arbitrary. Also, at least ucs-fonts has released a newer version in 2006,
while
the version in bitmap-fonts is from 2003.
* Release is complicated (5.1.1) for no real reason. Should be changed to
integer value (6?).
FIXXED
* BuildRoot should be changed to
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
FIXED
* In the cjk subpackage summary, CJK should be spelled with capital letters.
FIXED
* Prereq should be replaced by Requires (see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#tags)
FIXED
Others - added the dist tag.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-27 08:15 EST --- Hi Roozbeh, How do we handle the LU_LEGALNOTICE issue? And how do we solve the no-url-tag no-documentation issues? Thanks, Mayank -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] ||nfo) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bitmap-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review- --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-03 08:41 EST --- Change fedora-review to negative and assign to owner for fixing them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
