[Bug 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-27 22:26:19 EDT --- bpg-fonts-20090205-5.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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-27 22:28:01 EDT --- bpg-fonts-20090205-5.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|20090205-5.fc10 |20090205-5.fc9 -- 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||20090205-5.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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-26 09:32:17 EDT --- bpg-fonts-20090205-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bpg-fonts-20090205-5.fc9 -- 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2009-02-26 09:32:22 EDT --- bpg-fonts-20090205-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bpg-fonts-20090205-5.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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #14 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-20 17:15:56 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: bpg-fonts Short Description: Georgian Unicode fonts Owners: spot Branches: F-9 F-10 devel InitialCC: fonts-sig ...and it's 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-fonts-bugs-l...@redh ||at.com --- Comment #7 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-02-17 14:23:48 EDT --- Add the font bug list in CC so we don't miss issue updates again -- 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-02-17 14:48:55 EDT --- Ok, my bad for not being crystal-clear. is one of the few reserved characters in XML, you can't use it as-is. I'd say replace it with #38; http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-predefined-ent Also, while I'm at it 1. next week the new koji will allow srpm building with rawhide rpm, and rawhide rpm has support for group inheritance, so you can drop all the Group: User Interface/X from subpackages 2. for some reason upstream decided is was smart to add GPLGNU to the font names this release. So for interoperability reasons with other distros and documents that use the old font names, it's better to use the substitution template to alias the old names /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/substitution-font-template.conf (at least for the fonts in the old pack at http://groups.google.com/group/bpg-fonts/web/Old_BPG_GPL_GNU_Fonts.zip ) -- 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(tcall...@redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #9 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-17 15:01:24 EDT --- 1. Well, that's nice, but I'll be building these fonts for older releases as well, so I'll keep them. It doesn't hurt. 2. Okay, fixed, along with the #38 replacement across the board. New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/bpg-fonts-20090205-3.fc11.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/bpg-fonts.spec -- 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 --- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-02-17 17:11:05 EDT --- missing the trailing ;, an SGML/XML entity has the something; format -- 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 --- Comment #11 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-17 17:16:36 EDT --- Argh. Fixed. New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/bpg-fonts-20090205-4.fc11.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/bpg-fonts.spec -- 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tcall...@redhat.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-02-17 17:40:50 EDT --- Very fine work on a non-trivial package. I don't see any obvious problem now. ♖♖♖ 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
[Bug 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 --- Comment #13 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-02-17 17:42:07 EDT --- You can now continue from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a as usual -- 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 --- Comment #6 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-12 16:08:45 EDT --- New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/bpg-fonts-20090205-2.fc11.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/bpg-fonts.spec -- 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865
--- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-02-11
16:10:19 EDT ---
Ok, some feedback (awesome work BTW)
1. minor: since consensus seems to be that multiple directory ownership is ok
in some conditions, %_font_pkg now does it automatically, so you don't need the
%dir %{_fontdir} in common anymore (though it's probably harmless). Will need
to update the wiki templates to reflect this
2. it does not build in mock, but does build in koji, so your package is
probably fine and that's a mock bug (bug #485146)
3. major: the font files declare font family names like BPG Courier S
GPLGNU. Since fontconfig works with whatever the font files declare, you need
to use those names in your fontconfig files in you want them to work (how to
pass the safely is an interesting problem to discuss with Behdad)
4. I'd have used a fontconfig priority of 63-64 to make sure the latin glyphs
in those fonts do not override the ones in more mainstream 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 --- Comment #4 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-05 09:02:00 EDT --- Upstream clarified the legal issues and released a new zip file with the licensing accurately described. I've updated the package to reflect the new zip file: New SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/bpg-fonts-20090205-1.fc11.src.rpm New SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/bpg-fonts.spec -- 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 --- Comment #3 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-02-04 09:54:37 EDT --- Should the symlinks be relative, or is rpmlint being too pedantic here? rpmlint's check here was decided by the FPC (and just ratified by FESCo) to be a bit too strict. I'm going to write this up today, but you can look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Symlinks , which says: There are two ways of making a symlink, either as a relative link or an absolute link. In Fedora, neither method is required. Packagers should use their best judgement when deciding which method of symlink creation is appropriate. -- 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 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483865] Review Request: bpg-fonts - Georgian Unicode 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=483865 Charles R. Anderson c...@wpi.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@wpi.edu --- Comment #1 from Charles R. Anderson c...@wpi.edu 2009-02-03 21:57:13 EDT --- Initial review: rpmlint bpg-fonts-20090203-1.fc11.src.rpm bpg-fonts.src: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Upstream source sha1sum matches: fb996423afac1f8a1091d907795115f98249cd7f BPG_GPLGNU_Fonts.zip http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy + Fonts are in a single upstream archive. ? 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. + 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? rpmlint bpg-*.noarch.rpm bpg-algeti-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-algeti-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-algeti.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-algeti.conf bpg-algeti-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-chveulebrivi-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-chveulebrivi-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-chveulebrivi.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-chveulebrivi.conf bpg-chveulebrivi-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-courier-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-courier-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-courier.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-courier.conf bpg-courier-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-courier-s-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-courier-s-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-courier-s.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-courier-s.conf bpg-courier-s-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-elite-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-elite-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-elite.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-elite.conf bpg-elite-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-fonts-common.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-glaho-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-glaho-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-glaho.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-glaho.conf bpg-glaho-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-ingiri-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-ingiri-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-ingiri.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-ingiri.conf bpg-ingiri-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-nino-medium-cond-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-nino-medium-cond-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-nino-medium-cond.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-nino-medium-cond.conf bpg-nino-medium-cond-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-nino-medium-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-nino-medium-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-nino-medium.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-nino-medium.conf bpg-nino-medium-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-sans-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-sans-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-sans.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-sans.conf bpg-sans-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-sans-medium-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-sans-medium-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-sans-medium.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-sans-medium.conf bpg-sans-medium-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL+ with exceptions bpg-sans-modern-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation bpg-sans-modern-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-bpg.conf-sans-modern.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-bpg.conf-sans-modern.conf
