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=225794 --- Comment #10 from Tim Waugh <twa...@redhat.com> 2009-06-10 10:00:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > - Change > Requires(post): /usr/bin/mkfontscale /usr/bin/mkfontdir > to > Requires(post): xorg-x11-font-utils > as this is the package that provides those since Fedora Core 2 (2004). Done. > - I'm not totally sure you need > Requires(post): fontconfig > Requires(postun): fontconfig > as you already have Requires: fontconfig. Besides, this is probably > automatically picked up by rpm. Doesn't hurt having them, though. Left alone. > - Change references to /etc to %{_sysconfdir} Done. > - Setting umask is probably not necessary as this is done by rpm. > - Replace `which mkfontdir` with plain mkfontdir. Not sure about these. The scriptlets were copied from urw-fonts, so if they need fixing they ought to be fixed in both places. > - Drop > %dir %{catalogue} > in %files section, as > $ rpm -qf /etc/X11/fontpath.d/ > filesystem-2.4.19-1.fc10.i386 > is already owned on every installation. Done. > - I can't find a single mention of a license in the tarball! No, *sigh*. Tom Callaway looked into the licenses in July last year, and there haven't been any developments since then. 5.50-21.fc12 built. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
