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=491530 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai | |l.com) --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-22 14:50:12 EDT --- Initial review: 1. MUST: rename the package to chisholm-xxx to be consistent with "to be continued" font 2. MUST: register the font as fantasy, really, this is not a general-purpose font at all (also please use the same casing as the font files use, I don't know if fontconfig is case sensitive or not best avoid problems) 3. MUST: there is no clear version in the font files, so use the timestamp of the most recent file as version (19970902) 4. SHOULD: ask upstream to add a detached .txt licensing file to its zip (the font itself says "all rights reserved", and if the web site ever disappears we won't have any licensing grant trace anywhere) 5. SHOULD: ask usptream to use different family names for the three fonts and not invent weird styles like "at their Execution". They'll drive normal software like OpenOffice mad (yes I know this would make it a multifont package which is a bit harder to create but this is the right thing to do) -- 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