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=453017 Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED] | |) --- Comment #31 from Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-12 08:57:09 EDT --- Thank you for continuing to work on this. Anyway: 1. please use lowercase-only package names 2. please add a fontconfig file to each font so it's sorted in the right category 3. please use more descriptive package descriptions so users actually know what they're downloading 4. please make sure the fontconfig scriptlets are actually included in every package Here is a rough draft on how it should be done (I really should be reviewing other font packages instead of rewriting individual package submissions) http://nim.fedorapeople.org/un-extra-fonts.spec http://nim.fedorapeople.org/un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.6.080608.fc10.src.rpm It still needs: 1. proofing and completing of the package descriptions. 2. checking each font is assigned to the correct fontconfig generic family 3. checking the 66 priority is all right (with japanese people at least I think) Some of the changes are probably interesting for un-core as well. Please make all of those changes so I can move to the formal review step. Also the previous remarks on having upstream take a position on GPLv3 / adding font exception / providing sfd sources still stand though we should probably not block on them. -- 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
