Re: <DKIM> Issues with repo-font-audit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Le Lun 1 juin 2015 17:35, Alexander Ploumistos a écrit :

> So that means two bug reports against repo-font-audit, one concerning
> metadata files and the other one for ttfcoverage.

Sure, however I don't remember whom we stole ttfcoverage from :) Font
tooling was and still is a mess. repo-font-audit is mainly an attempt to
script all the checks one could perform by hand, it's not especially
complex or well written. No one was bothering to run all the tests
manually before.

>>> And on a slightly different topic, is it absolutely required to create
>>> a wiki page for a font package, before it is accepted for inclusion?
>> It's not a lot of work (mostly cut & pasting + some table filling), and
>> that gives you a central place to check font state in Fedora instead of
>> trawling repos and mailing lists to find out which fonts are in and what
>> people would like to see packaged.
> Can I bother you when I get around to editing the relevant wiki pages?
> I'm not that confident I can provide all the information that is
> requested.

It's noet designed to be hard, I'll be surptised if you're stuck anywhere

Nicolas Mailhot

fonts mailing list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Font Configuration]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux