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=486977 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #9 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-14 14:52:33 EDT --- Another pass: 1. you're not defining fontname as intended by the template and as a result you have weird package names such as gnu-free-fonts-mono-fonts instead of a nice gnu-free-mono-fonts fontname shoud not have the same value as name or we would not bother with it 2. your fontconfig symlinks are broken lrw-r--r-- 1 root root 52 mars 14 19:35 /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-gnu-free-fonts-mono.conf -> /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/gnu-free-fonts-m ono -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 334 mars 5 21:46 /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-gnu-free-fonts-mono.conf It would probably simpler if you just used the symlinking logic proposed by the template 3. Your compat package Requires: gnu-free-fonts-freemono-fonts = %{version}-%{release} Requires: gnu-free-fonts-freesans-fonts = %{version}-%{release} Requires: gnu-free-fonts-freeserif-fonts = %{version}-%{release} But your srpm generates subpackages named differently, so it won't work 4. rpmlint points some minor problems W: spelling-error-in-description compatability compatibility E: description-line-too-long This package only exists to help transition pre 20090104-4 freefotn users to the new\ W: summary-not-capitalized freefont compatibility package -- 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