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=476720 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag|needinfo?(sanjay_ankur@yaho | |o.co.in) | --- Comment #13 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-16 16:11:17 EDT --- I seem to have missed this update, sorry, should have looked at it way before. This package looks a lot more sane, but it still has the following mistakes 1. you're not buildrequiring fontforge, so it won't build. Please check your packages in mock or a koji scratch build before submitting 2. will probably need the same change as other packages to build on rawhide fontforge 3. I don't think you need to put sfd everywhere, unless the author requested it like for old standard 4. no idea if using %{common_desc} instead of %common_desc will have bad side-effects or not 5. you're not using the suggested fontconf form, it needs to be something like number-%{fontname} to work. To choose the right number see /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/fontconfig-priorities.txt 6. It's considered bad form to mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} in a single template 7. be careful to put your doc in the common subpackage, not the main package 8. you can put the "beteckna" font in the main package as it's named "beteckna" not "beteckna general". Look how the "gentium basic" package does it. The fontconfig file probably needs to be adapted -- 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