This is going to be pretty common for anything that uses the bootstrap CSS framework, since glyphicons is bundled as part of it. I do not see much benefit from packaging this separately, especially as the license for the glyphicons halflings font included with bootstrap is MIT, but CC-BY from the upstream (glyphicons.org). Stefan Nuxoll <stefan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:stefan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> ________________________________ > Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:55:53 -0700 > Subject: Packaged fonts? (and regular audits?) > From: davejohansen@xxxxxxxxx > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > During the review of cppformat, it was pointed out that it contained a > font that should be removed because it's packaged with Fedora ( > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1216279#c3 ). While working > on resolving this, I was looking into what package provided this font > so I could add the appropriate Requires to get the font and noticed > that quite a few packages also include this font: > yum provides "*/glyphicons-halflings-regular.ttf" > > Is this ok? And if not, then is there some way that a set of > fedora-review style audits could be run on existing packages to verify > that these sorts of things didn't accidentally slip through the > original review or were introduced in an update without being noticed? > > Thanks, > Dave > > -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of > Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
