[Bug 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-04-17 14:04:21 EDT --- beteckna-fonts-0.3-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||0.3-4.fc10 Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-25 12:07:34 EDT --- beteckna-fonts-0.3-4.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update beteckna-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-3018 -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-03-24 07:02:05 EDT --- beteckna-fonts-0.3-4.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/beteckna-fonts-0.3-4.fc10 -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net |sanjay_an...@yahoo.co.in Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(sanjay_an...@yaho | |o.co.in)| --- Comment #16 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-03-21 07:56:11 EDT --- Hi Ankur Some nitpicking: 1. your common_desc declaration is still using define not global 2. I'm not sure doing %clean after %files is a good idea 3. rpmlint complains of beteckna-fonts.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 31, tab: line 1) 4. rpmlint complains of beteckna-fonts-common.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/beteckna-fonts-common-0.3/CHANGELOG (see the gfs font specs for examples of txt file recoding to UTF-8) 5. it seems none of those fonts have normal minuscules. Therefore it'd probably be better to register them as fantasy not sans-serif in your fontconfig files However the rest of the packaging is sane and much better than some of the stuff I've seen recently and the problems are not worth blocking import ⚶⚶⚶ APPROVED ⚶⚶⚶ Please do consider fixing the remaining small problems however You can now continue from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a As for the warnings emitted by fontforge during build, they unfortunately point problems in the original upstream file. You should relay them to the font author(s) so they get fixed. If you're interested in learning some font creation stuff, you can try to fix them yourself, and create a patch for upstream. eimai and moyogo on #dejavu will usually be helpful to people discovering fontforge. ⇒ REASSIGNING now the review is done -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-03-21 10:25:29 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: beteckna-fonts Short Description: Beteckna sans-serif fonts Owners: ankursinha Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: fonts-sig -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|sanjay_an...@yahoo.co.in|sanjay.an...@gmail.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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #18 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-22 01:49:21 EDT --- cvs done. -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 --- Comment #14 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-03-17 13:14:53 EDT --- hi, made the changes : http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/beteckna-0.3/beteckna-fonts.spec http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/beteckna-0.3/beteckna-fonts-0.3-4.fc10.src.rpm tested the srpm using mock.. all processes returned 0 so im assuming it was a successful build.. regards, Ankur -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 --- Comment #15 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-03-17 13:28:39 EDT --- hi, i got these in the output though.. DEBUG: Bad sfd file. Glyph igrave has width 207 even though it should be DEBUG: bound to the width of dotlessi which is 186. DEBUG: Bad sfd file. Glyph iacute has width 207 even though it should be DEBUG: bound to the width of dotlessi which is 186. DEBUG: Bad sfd file. Glyph icircumflex has width 207 even though it should be DEBUG: bound to the width of dotlessi which is 186. DEBUG: Bad sfd file. Glyph idieresis has width 207 even though it should be DEBUG: bound to the width of dotlessi which is 186. DEBUG: Bad sfd file. Glyph Agrave has width 695 even though it should be DEBUG: bound to the width of A which is 674. DEBUG: Bad sfd file. Glyph Aring has width 695 even though it should be DEBUG: bound to the width of A which is 674. DEBUG: Bad sfd file. Glyph Egrave has width 518 even though it should be DEBUG: bound to the width of E which is 483. DEBUG: Bad sfd file. Glyph aring has width 476 even though it should be DEBUG: bound to the width of a which is 480. How do i handle these? Ankur -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(sanjay_an...@yaho ||o.co.in) -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Flag|needinfo?(sanjay_an...@yaho |
|o.co.in)|
--- Comment #13 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-03-16
16:11:17 EDT ---
I seem to have missed this update, sorry, should have looked at it way before.
This package looks a lot more sane, but it still has the following mistakes
1. you're not buildrequiring fontforge, so it won't build. Please check your
packages in mock or a koji scratch build before submitting
2. will probably need the same change as other packages to build on rawhide
fontforge
3. I don't think you need to put sfd everywhere, unless the author requested it
like for old standard
4. no idea if using %{common_desc} instead of %common_desc will have bad
side-effects or not
5. you're not using the suggested fontconf form, it needs to be something like
number-%{fontname} to work. To choose the right number see
/usr/share/fontconfig/templates/fontconfig-priorities.txt
6. It's considered bad form to mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} in a single
template
7. be careful to put your doc in the common subpackage, not the main package
8. you can put the beteckna font in the main package as it's named beteckna
not beteckna general. Look how the gentium basic package does it. The
fontconfig file probably needs to be adapted
--
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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 --- Comment #12 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-03-07 03:06:33 EDT --- think i finally got it.. :D packages: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/beteckna-0.3/beteckna-sfd-fonts-0.3-3.fc10.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/beteckna-0.3/beteckna-sfd-fonts.spec Do i need to mention anything anywhere about that edge error ? -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 --- Comment #9 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-02-16 07:41:11 EDT --- Packages: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/beteckna-0.3/beteckna-sfd-fonts-0.3-3.fc10.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/beteckna-0.3/beteckna-sfd-fonts.spec It builds fine.. I am still having trouble with the %package etc part.. This package too, the rpm names arent as they are supposed to be.. Wrote: /home/Package/rpmbuild/SRPMS/beteckna-sfd-fonts-0.3-3.fc10.src.rpm Wrote: /home/Package/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/beteckna-sfd-fonts-0.3-3.fc10.noarch.rpm Wrote: /home/Package/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/beteckna-sfd-fonts-beteckna-sfd-general-fonts-0.3-3.fc10.noarch.rpm Wrote: /home/Package/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/beteckna-sfd-fonts-beteckna-sfd-lower-case-fonts-0.3-3.fc10.noarch.rpm Wrote: /home/Package/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/beteckna-sfd-fonts-beteckna-sfd-small-caps-fonts-0.3-3.fc10.noarch.rpm Ive tried what the multi spec has in it.. Got stuck there.. Doing anything else with the spec gives me %post file not found.. I've been stuck there for almost two weeks until i atleast managed to build this. One of you will have to please tell me how to do that part properly.. The fontforge warning/error persists. It gives a 0 exit status though.. Am waiting for a reply from the mailing list for confirmation. -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 --- Comment #10 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.an...@gmail.com 2009-02-16 11:49:50 EDT --- This is what George said about the error,It indicates an internal problem in fontforge that will sometimes cause an error. You can correct it by rewriting fontforge's code so that it handles rounding errors better. This is not something I can do, but if you can please do so.. I certainly cannot rewrite the code to fontforge. How should i handle 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(sanjay_an...@yaho ||o.co.in) --- Comment #11 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-02-16 18:40:08 EDT --- 1. your package names are broken because you're missing the -n switch to %package as documented in the template. Since your names are broken the auto-posts do not work 2. be careful to put the doc in the common subpackage not the main package 3. After koji's update next week-end you'll be able to drop all the Group: User Interface/X in subpackages, they'll be inherited from the main package declaration 4. You can ignore the fontforge warning since this is nothing you can do about short of changing the fontforge code, which is not your priority :p Please update your package accordingly -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 Ankur Sinha sanjay_an...@yahoo.co.in changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(sanjay_an...@yaho | |o.co.in)| --- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha sanjay_an...@yahoo.co.in 2009-01-13 03:59:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) PS for the fontforge warning, ask on the fontforge mailing list hi, I've asked. No reply till date. No help on the IRC too. I'll try looking elsewhere. Any suggestions? Also,I havent packaged a multi font yet so it will take me a while to understand the new spec. I'll refer the fonts already packaged and get it done as quickly as possible. regards, Ankur -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-13 04:11:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) (In reply to comment #6) PS for the fontforge warning, ask on the fontforge mailing list I've asked. No reply till date. No help on the IRC too. I'll try looking elsewhere. Any suggestions? You can try to ask eimai or moyogo on #dejavu. Otherwise, not idea :(. Also,I havent packaged a multi font yet so it will take me a while to understand the new spec. I'll refer the fonts already packaged and get it done as quickly as possible. Ok. There should be plenty of examples to take inspiration from in rawhide right now (dejavu, vera, mgopen, 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||nicolas.mail...@laposte.net AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|nicolas.mail...@laposte.net Flag||fedora-review?, ||needinfo?(sanjay_an...@yaho ||o.co.in) --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-04 05:06:51 EDT --- Hi Ankur, This looks quite good and you've progressed a lot since your first submissions. However, you need to adapt this spec file to the new templates, like for your other submissions -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 Ankur Sinha sanjay_an...@yahoo.co.in changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(sanjay_an...@yaho | |o.co.in)| --- Comment #4 from Ankur Sinha sanjay_an...@yahoo.co.in 2009-01-04 11:29:44 EDT --- hi, packages: http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/beteckna-0.3/beteckna-sfd-fonts-0.3-2.fc10.src.rpm http://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/beteckna-0.3/beteckna-sfd-fonts.spec Gives this error while building packages..During the build using fontforge..FindMatchinHVEdge didn't I havent been able to understad what it is..Packages build normally though.. Getting this warning here too with rpmlint : beteckna-sfd-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-beteckna.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-beteckna.conf regards, -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-04 13:05:36 EDT --- PS for the fontforge warning, ask on the fontforge mailing list -- 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag||needinfo?(sanjay_an...@yaho
||o.co.in)
--- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-01-04
12:51:16 EDT ---
Looks nice so here is a complete review:
1. probably better to use
%define archivename %{fontname}-%{version}
2. The summary needs a little work
(for example 'Geometric sans-serif font inspired by Futura')
3. you do not need to add sfd to the name, renaming is only a requirement for
OFL fonts, GPL does not require it
4. beteckna.se seems dead, no need to reference it in the description
5. we already have a licensing field, do not include The font is free,
licensed under terms of the GNU GPL in the description
6. You're wrapping your description lines too short, Fedora standard is 79
columns not 50
7. do package AUTHORS LICENSE CHANGELOG as %doc too
8. I see beteckna is actually 3 different font families: Beteckna,
BetecknaLowerCase, Beteckna Small Caps. Please package them in 3 different
subpackages using the -multi template (the two families which do not have a
correct uppercase/lowercase mix are probably more fantasy than sans-serif
fonts anyway)
9.[not a blocker] Please ask upstream to consider adding the FSF Font exception
to their licensing so the font can be used by people who embed fonts in PDF
files
10. Please change the category of the wiki page describing the font so other
packagers see they need not work on it
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Beteckna_fonts
(see the help in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_description_template )
You do not need a packager sponsorship for this, just a Fedora FAS account
Anyway that's all mostly small stuff and nothing that should be too hard for
you to fix.
⇒ NEEDINFO in the meanwhile
--
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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2008-12-21 16:43:59 EDT --- [This is a simplified version of the message sent to every package maintainer that ships TTF/OTF/Type1 fonts in Fedora.] Our font packaging guidelines have now changed. New font package submissions must now be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21) has been submitted for FPC and FESCO approval today. The new templates should make the creation of font packages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager in fedora-devel and can serve as examples: ❄ abyssinica-fonts ❄ andika-fonts ❄ apanov-heuristica-fonts ❄ bitstream-vera-fonts ❄ charis-fonts ❄ dejavu-fonts ❄ ecolier-court-fonts ❄ edrip-fonts ❄ gfs-ambrosia-fonts ❄ gfs-artemisia-fonts ❄ gfs-baskerville-fonts ❄ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ❄ gfs-bodoni-fonts ❄ gfs-complutum-fonts ❄ gfs-didot-classic-fonts ❄ gfs-didot-fonts ❄ gfs-eustace-fonts ❄ gfs-fleischman-fonts ❄ gfs-garaldus-fonts ❄ gfs-gazis-fonts ❄ gfs-jackson-fonts ❄ gfs-neohellenic-fonts ❄ gfs-nicefore-fonts ❄ gfs-olga-fonts ❄ gfs-porson-fonts ❄ gfs-solomos-fonts ❄ gfs-theokritos-fonts ❄ nafees-web-naskh-fonts ❄ stix-fonts ❄ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts The new spec templates have been designed to be easy to update to from the previous guidelines, and to remove complexity from font packages. To help new package creation the fontpackages-devel package has been made available in Fedora 9 and 10. If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at 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 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna 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=476720 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |beteckna-sfd-fonts.spec - |beteckna-sfd-fonts - |Beteckna fonts |Beteckna 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
