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=481009 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redh | |at.com AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(sshedmak@xxxxxxxx | |om) --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-24 06:40:52 EDT --- 1. you have two fonts in there, Pothana2000 and Vemana2000. Our guidelines call for their packaging in different packages or subpackages http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Package_layout_for_fonts 2. now since they do not share the same version, this will difficult for you, unless you use a timestamp as version 3. you were quite right to remove the non-free .exe from the source, but that will stop our automatic 'did upstream release a new version' script checks from working 4. even though the PDF manual contains mostly unrelated windows info, it does contain the copyright notice so you should include it in %doc too 5. while we do accept pure GPL fonts in Fedora, the GPL has problems WRT embedding fonts in other documents (common for PDFs) so we much prefer if upstream added the FSF font exception to its licensing http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#embedding ⇒ none of those are blockers, but it would simplify your life considerably if you could convince upstream to publish each font in a separate versionned archive, with no .exe inside, and with the font exception added to its licensing Please consider asking those changes of upstream before continuing 6. since upstream release two fonts (or more?) please consider adding a foundry prefix to your package names 7. Please make sure you've completed all the steps (as requester and packager of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle up to and including 2.a) 8. This part is too much. Including the author name in the description is sufficient: ------ Author ------ "Dr. Tirumala Krishna Desikachary" <Krishna_Desikachary@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 9. Please wrap your description at 79column, not 46 10. 49 is much too low a fontconfig priority level. Please respect the numbering ranges documented on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Registering_a_font_in_default_families 11. Never process files in %install. If you need to fix up upstream txt files, do so in %prep 12. Please do not change the fontconfig symlinking pattern documented in our templates, you'll introduce bugs. If you've properly implemented the previous steps it should just work. You have many examples of simple spec files in the gfs fonts ⇒ NEEDINFO till this is being taken care of -- 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@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review