Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)
Hi, If you've received this message directly (not via a list) you're concerned by the font package changes proposed for Fedora 11: — the changes touch one of your packages or — the changes touch/need one component you're lead on (comps, packagedb, rpm…) Please reply to the fedora fonts list however to keep the discussion in a single place. The complete list of proposed changes is published there http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes All is open to discussion, and it's on a wiki page, so don't hesitate to complete/correct it. This list is pretty ambitious and requires buy-in by many people to be executed properly. Not to mention that the Fedora 11 cycle will start soon. Please do respond to the list, stating: — your requests and comments (if any) — if you will change your packages along those lines for Fedora 11 — if you will allow other packagers to change your packages in your stead — if you totally object to one part of the proposal, and why Unless there is strong opposition I will apply those changes to my own packages (and to vera and liberation if their maintainers are ok with it). However, to be effective, other packagers must change their packages too. ▶▶▶ Short proposal summary: ▶ package renames, to fix the naming discrepancies that have crept in with the repository growth (different packagers followed different conventions) ▶ package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora users ▶ new comps groups, to group related fonts together (gfs fonts, sil fonts, etc) ▶ reminder of the ongoing fontconfig guidelines change (still waiting for fontconfig upstream to comment on) ▶ new packaging template and macros (to put in rpm? some other place?) ▶▶▶ Rationale: ▶ help spins and users Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias, without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a valid setup. ▶ help packagers and package reviewers Inconsistent repository and fuzzy rules mean package reviews drag on while the kinks are ironed out, which is not fun at all for everyone involved. Much better to have clear conventions packagers can identify before hitting review stage. ▶▶▶ Proof of concept: Dejavu has been used to proof the concepts in rawhide (cf the wiki page) I hope those proposals will be agreeable to everyone. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Fwd: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc)]
[Of course I had to forget a few recipients] Message transféré Sujet: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:09:14 +0100 Hi, If you've received this message directly (not via a list) you're concerned by the font package changes proposed for Fedora 11: — the changes touch one of your packages or — the changes touch/need one component you're lead on (comps, packagedb, rpm…) Please reply to the fedora fonts list however to keep the discussion in a single place. The complete list of proposed changes is published there http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes All is open to discussion, and it's on a wiki page, so don't hesitate to complete/correct it. This list is pretty ambitious and requires buy-in by many people to be executed properly. Not to mention that the Fedora 11 cycle will start soon. Please do respond to the list, stating: — your requests and comments (if any) — if you will change your packages along those lines for Fedora 11 — if you will allow other packagers to change your packages in your stead — if you totally object to one part of the proposal, and why Unless there is strong opposition I will apply those changes to my own packages (and to vera and liberation if their maintainers are ok with it). However, to be effective, other packagers must change their packages too. ▶▶▶ Short proposal summary: ▶ package renames, to fix the naming discrepancies that have crept in with the repository growth (different packagers followed different conventions) ▶ package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora users ▶ new comps groups, to group related fonts together (gfs fonts, sil fonts, etc) ▶ reminder of the ongoing fontconfig guidelines change (still waiting for fontconfig upstream to comment on) ▶ new packaging template and macros (to put in rpm? some other place?) ▶▶▶ Rationale: ▶ help spins and users Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias, without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a valid setup. ▶ help packagers and package reviewers Inconsistent repository and fuzzy rules mean package reviews drag on while the kinks are ironed out, which is not fun at all for everyone involved. Much better to have clear conventions packagers can identify before hitting review stage. ▶▶▶ Proof of concept: Dejavu has been used to proof the concepts in rawhide (cf the wiki page) I hope those proposals will be agreeable to everyone. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 457281] Review Request: unikurd-fonts - A widely used Kurdish font
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=457281 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 07:21:08 EDT --- unikurd-web-font-20020502-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/unikurd-web-font-20020502-1.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-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
rpms/unikurd-web-font/F-8 import.log, NONE, 1.1 unikurd-web-font.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2
Author: mnowak
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/unikurd-web-font/F-8
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv15729/F-8
Modified Files:
.cvsignore sources
Added Files:
import.log unikurd-web-font.spec
Log Message:
init
--- NEW FILE import.log ---
unikurd-web-font-20020502-1_el5:F-8:unikurd-web-font-20020502-1.el5.src.rpm:1226232034
--- NEW FILE unikurd-web-font.spec ---
%define fontname unikurd-web
%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname}
%define archivename unikurdweb
Name: %{fontname}-font
Version:20020502
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:A widely used Kurdish font
Group: User Interface/X
# FIXME:
# Shouldn't we have SFD (or SFD-like) sources? Upstream is *not*
# responding on this
License:GPLv3
URL:http://www.kurditgroup.org/node/1337
Source0:http://www.kurditgroup.org/download/1337/%{archivename}.zip
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
%description
A widely used Kurdish font which supports various Arabic scripts like
(Arabic, Kurdish, Persian) and also Latin.
%prep
%setup -q -c %{archivename}
%build
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
install -dm 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontdir}
install -pm 0644 Unikuweb.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontdir}
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%post
if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then
%{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{fontdir} || :
fi
%postun
if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then
%{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{fontdir} || :
fi
%files
%defattr(644,root,root,755)
%doc gpl.txt
%dir %{fontdir}/
%{fontdir}/Unikuweb.ttf
%changelog
* Tue Oct 14 2008 Michal Nowak [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 20020502
- version is now based on date of last issue of the font
- %%defattr(-,root,root,-) - %%defattr(644,root,root,755)
* Mon Oct 13 2008 Michal Nowak [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.00-2
- got rid of -web sub-package
- changed name from unikurd-fonts-web to unikurd-web-font
- minor structural changes in SPEC file
* Tue Jul 30 2008 Michal Nowak [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.00-1
- initial packaging
- this package should be prepared for another unikurd fonts
in sub-packages because on the KurdIT group/unikurd web there
are plenthora of them, but probably not under suitable licenses
Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/unikurd-web-font/F-8/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2
--- .cvsignore 15 Oct 2008 16:45:08 - 1.1
+++ .cvsignore 9 Nov 2008 12:01:20 - 1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+unikurdweb.zip
Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/unikurd-web-font/F-8/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2
--- sources 15 Oct 2008 16:45:08 - 1.1
+++ sources 9 Nov 2008 12:01:20 - 1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+1d0af629e8f4ce4e1722d0cacf2e26b0 unikurdweb.zip
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
rpms/unikurd-web-font/F-10 import.log, NONE, 1.1 unikurd-web-font.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2
Author: mnowak
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/unikurd-web-font/F-10
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv14398/F-10
Modified Files:
.cvsignore sources
Added Files:
import.log unikurd-web-font.spec
Log Message:
init
--- NEW FILE import.log ---
unikurd-web-font-20020502-1_el5:F-10:unikurd-web-font-20020502-1.el5.src.rpm:1226231708
--- NEW FILE unikurd-web-font.spec ---
%define fontname unikurd-web
%define fontdir %{_datadir}/fonts/%{fontname}
%define archivename unikurdweb
Name: %{fontname}-font
Version:20020502
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:A widely used Kurdish font
Group: User Interface/X
# FIXME:
# Shouldn't we have SFD (or SFD-like) sources? Upstream is *not*
# responding on this
License:GPLv3
URL:http://www.kurditgroup.org/node/1337
Source0:http://www.kurditgroup.org/download/1337/%{archivename}.zip
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
BuildArch: noarch
%description
A widely used Kurdish font which supports various Arabic scripts like
(Arabic, Kurdish, Persian) and also Latin.
%prep
%setup -q -c %{archivename}
%build
%install
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
install -dm 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontdir}
install -pm 0644 Unikuweb.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{fontdir}
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%post
if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then
%{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{fontdir} || :
fi
%postun
if [ $1 -eq 0 -a -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ] ; then
%{_bindir}/fc-cache -f %{fontdir} || :
fi
%files
%defattr(644,root,root,755)
%doc gpl.txt
%dir %{fontdir}/
%{fontdir}/Unikuweb.ttf
%changelog
* Tue Oct 14 2008 Michal Nowak [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 20020502
- version is now based on date of last issue of the font
- %%defattr(-,root,root,-) - %%defattr(644,root,root,755)
* Mon Oct 13 2008 Michal Nowak [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.00-2
- got rid of -web sub-package
- changed name from unikurd-fonts-web to unikurd-web-font
- minor structural changes in SPEC file
* Tue Jul 30 2008 Michal Nowak [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 1.00-1
- initial packaging
- this package should be prepared for another unikurd fonts
in sub-packages because on the KurdIT group/unikurd web there
are plenthora of them, but probably not under suitable licenses
Index: .cvsignore
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/unikurd-web-font/F-10/.cvsignore,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2
--- .cvsignore 15 Oct 2008 16:45:08 - 1.1
+++ .cvsignore 9 Nov 2008 11:55:47 - 1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+unikurdweb.zip
Index: sources
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/unikurd-web-font/F-10/sources,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2
--- sources 15 Oct 2008 16:45:08 - 1.1
+++ sources 9 Nov 2008 11:55:47 - 1.2
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+1d0af629e8f4ce4e1722d0cacf2e26b0 unikurdweb.zip
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 461139] Review Request: Thabit-fonts from Arabeyes.org
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=461139 --- Comment #25 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 10:24:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24) i have mailed upstream since i am not a direct contributer to olpc . Anyways I am still waiting for a reply Please do not wait for OLPC to respond. Our packaging standards are higher than theirs, any any font package that passed Fedora review will just the OLPC package next time they rebase on a new Fedora version. Just do the requested fixes, so we can have a clean Fedora package OLPC can be referred to. -- 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-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 470704] Hinting problems with default Sans font
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=470704 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 10:41:05 EDT --- You're right, this is the autohinter's fault. If I turn the hinting off entirely, I get unusably blurry fonts, but the ligatures don't look misplaced. So freetype is actually the correct component to file this against (though disabling the ligatures in Pango and Qt 4 might also be a solution, we've done well for years without them, e.g. Qt 3 never used 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-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 461139] Review Request: Thabit-fonts from Arabeyes.org
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=461139 --- Comment #28 from Muayyad Alsadi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 11:05:40 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=323015) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=323015) font config configuration -- 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-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 461139] Review Request: Thabit-fonts from Arabeyes.org
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=461139 --- Comment #27 from Muayyad Alsadi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 11:05:05 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=323014) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=323014) spec file for arabeyes-fonts superpackage -- 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-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 468618] A bit over-enthusiastic splitting
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=468618 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 16:22:12 EDT --- BTW if the problem is that the current macros used in this package want to take a single font file as argument, then the subpackaging macro I wrote in dejavu yesterday could be used instead. I must admit I was thinking very hard about the un font packages when I wrote 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-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 452317] Review Request: heuristica-fonts - Heuristica font
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=452317 Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #16 from Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 16:35:51 EDT --- I'll go ahead and review this in the next few days sometime. -- 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-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi'
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=368561 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Component|dejavu-fonts|freetype AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 468823] Review Request: hanazono-fonts - Japanese Mincho-typeface TrueType font
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=468823 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED], ||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 16:56:39 EDT --- Since nobody bites, I'll take this. First review pass 1. you're packaging a font with a new license. While at first view it seems ok, you still need spot to approve it and put it on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts 2. please follow the font packaging process outlined on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle and in particular create a wiki page that describes your font and can be referenced in release notes (a wiki page template is available there http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_description_template ) 3. your fontconfig priority (59) is a little low, our guidelines states CJK fonts should be in the 65-69 range http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Simple_priority_lists Of course Behdad has the last say on this, so if you convince him to ok it I'll let this pass. 4. your fontconfig rule is a bit more convoluted than what we usually do. It probably works but please get Behdad to review it (and ok it there). 5. please also alias the font the other way, so fontconfig knows it should use serif fonts to complete HanaMin http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Generic_names 6. please send your fontconfig file to hanazano upstream so it's included in their next release once you're happy with it 7. you can drop the -f argument to fc-cache for releases ≥ Fedora 9 8. please use the defattr suggested by guidelines %defattr(644,root,root,755) 9. it's a little easier to review a package when the fields are in the same order as in rpmdevtool's spectemplate-fonts.spec (cosmetic, you can ignore it, just take it into account for your next font package) All in all this was a pleasant spec file to review and I'll have no problem approving it once those little problems are taken care of → 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-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 468823] Review Request: hanazono-fonts - Japanese Mincho-typeface TrueType font
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=468823 Akira TAGOH [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Comment #5 from Akira TAGOH [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-10 00:12:08 EDT --- Thank you for taking a review for this package. (In reply to comment #3) 1. you're packaging a font with a new license. While at first view it seems ok, you still need spot to approve it and put it on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts I've already asked on fedora-legal-list, and just followed him to describe License tag - https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2008-October/msg00022.html 2. please follow the font packaging process outlined on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle and in particular create a wiki page that describes your font and can be referenced in release notes Just created: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hanazono_font 3. your fontconfig priority (59) is a little low, our guidelines states CJK fonts should be in the 65-69 range http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Simple_priority_lists 4. your fontconfig rule is a bit more convoluted than what we usually do. It probably works but please get Behdad to review it (and ok it there). I'd like to push this font prior to sazanami-mincho.ttf which we defaults for Serif for Japanese, because the quality is better than it. I'm not sure what's the right thing to do that for fontconfig config. that would be appreciated if someone could helps me. 5. please also alias the font the other way, so fontconfig knows it should use serif fonts to complete HanaMin http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Generic_names Fixed in the updated package. 6. please send your fontconfig file to hanazano upstream so it's included in their next release once you're happy with it Sure. 7. you can drop the -f argument to fc-cache for releases ≥ Fedora 9 Can you update the template page as well to see what's the expected thing hereafter? 8. please use the defattr suggested by guidelines %defattr(644,root,root,755) Sorry, missed one. fixed. 9. it's a little easier to review a package when the fields are in the same order as in rpmdevtool's spectemplate-fonts.spec (cosmetic, you can ignore it, just take it into account for your next font package) Oh, wasn't aware of that. improved a bit in: Spec URL: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/hanazono-fonts/hanazono-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/hanazono-fonts/hanazono-fonts-20081012-2.fc9.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-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 368561] ligature-related font rendering bug with 'ff' and 'fi'
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=368561 Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] ||com --- Comment #14 from Kevin Kofler [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 16:25:20 EDT --- *** Bug 470704 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 468823] Review Request: hanazono-fonts - Japanese Mincho-typeface TrueType font
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=468823 Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC|[EMAIL PROTECTED] | --- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-09 21:39:05 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Since nobody bites, I'll take this. First review pass 1. you're packaging a font with a new license. While at first view it seems ok, you still need spot to approve it and put it on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts See this https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2008-October/msg00022.html -- 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-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
