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=482993 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |roozbeh@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-29 17:07:11 EDT --- 1. probably better to use -n with %setup instead of using -c and playing mv games 2. Please consider http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#Do_I_need_to_Provide_my_old_package_names.3F http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#What_if_the_new_naming_guidelines_require_me_to_rename_my_source_package.3F http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#Am_I_done_after_creating_a_new_fonts_.28sub.29package_or_renaming_an_existing_one.3F http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#The_fontconfig_stuff_the_font_guidelines_suggest_seems_complex._Can_I_skip_it.3F However, despite the uglyness associated to 1., the package and upgrade path works. ⬕⬕⬕ APPROVED ⬕⬕⬕ -- 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