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=486680 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(josephsmidt@gmail | |.com) --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-23 05:49:21 EDT --- 1. The official template evolved a little lately, please use /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-simple.spec from fontpackages-devel ≥ 1.20 as target. Tools like meld can help you see the differences (you can find latest fotpackages here if it has not hit a mirror next you yet http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=7288 ) 1.a replace your %define with %global 1.b. Drop this # 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. 1.c and drop this %dir %{_fontdir} 2. The timestamp of the font file inside the zip you use as source is 20090125, please use it as version. What matters is when upstream created a file, not when you packaged it 3. The font name declared by the TTF is "Banana", that's what you need to use in your fontconfig file (OTOH a font named "Banana" with a "Peels" face/style is going to drive apps crazy, please ask upstream to rename the font to "Banana Peels" with a standard "book", "regular" or maybe "bold" face/style) -- 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