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=486248 Hans Ulrich Niedermann <rhbugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(rhbugs@n-dimensio | |nal.de) | --- Comment #7 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann <rhbugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-20 08:24:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > 1. You can safely drop this comment > # Do not trust font metadata versionning unless you've checked upstream does > # update versions on file changes. When in doubt use the timestamp of the most > # recent file as version. Dropped. > 2. Are you sure you want to keep this Provide? > Provides: terminus-font-x11 = 4.28-2 No. Dropped. (Turned out not to be useful after all, I had misread the rpm output.) > 3. You can probably use the common_desc trick found in > /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec > to simplify your spec Done. > 4. Group: User Interface/X is a bit ironic for the console package It is, but I cannot see any fitting rpm group. "Application/Text" does not work either, because this is a font, not an application processing text. "System Environment/Base" is the group of the kbd package which contains the other console fonts, but terminus-fonts-console is not a required basic part of the system environment either. So, in the absences of a "Others" group, I don't see a group where this package would really fit into. Groups are not really used any more anyway, as far as I understand it, so it probably has no consequences anyway. If you want the terminus-fonts-console package in a specific, different group, I'm happy to change it, of course. > 5. If you only push your package to rawhide (as you should do), I think you can > assume filesystem is at the right version > Requires: filesystem >= 2.4.11-1 > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#Do_I_need_to_change_my_package_in_stable_releases_in_addition_to_Rawhide.2Fdevel.3F Dropped. F-10 shipped a newer filesystem package, and that is all I cared about. > 6. FPC will ask you to use globals instead of defines soonish > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define Changed. > 7. Do you really need to hardcode /etc in the catalog path? No. Changed to %{_sysconfdir}. > 8. It's a bit saner to put Provides/Obsoletes next to other rpm dependency > rules (requires/buildrequires) Done. > 9. you do not need %dir %{_fontdir} anymore > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/fontpackages-1.20-1.fc10 Changed: Removed the %dir, and versioned the build requirement for fontpackages-devel. > 10. really adding a fontconfig file which is effectively a noop helps no one. > Please take a look at the templates in /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/ they're > not hard a all to fill Added a simple fontconfig file now. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips read as if anything going beyond that empty noop fontconfig file was optional, and did not mention those (really useful) templates. > 11. the symlinks warning of rpmlint is totally bogus and FRPC already decided > to have it nuked > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Symlinks Good. I am ignoring those now. I have uploaded the a version as terminus-fonts-4.28-5.fc10 with all the above changes incorporated: http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/terminus-fonts/4.28-5.fc10/terminus-fonts.spec http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/terminus-fonts/4.28-5.fc10/terminus-fonts-4.28-5.fc10.src.rpm http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/terminus-fonts/4.28-5.fc10/terminus-fonts-fontconfig.conf http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/terminus-fonts/4.28-5.fc10/ http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=ndim/public_git/terminus-fonts-package.git;a=summary -- 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