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=492797 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(tcallawa@xxxxxxxx | |om) --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-30 15:15:41 EDT --- Initial review: 1. please use "oflb" not "ofl" as prefix, since OFL is already commonly used to identify a license the Open Font Library folks use OFLB to designate themselves 2. you have the wrong font name in your fontconfig file 3. you have some stray %defines, we're supposed to use %globals nowadays 4. %common_desc is not really useful for anything in a mono-font spec file, though I suppose it's harmless 5. your metadata declaration order is unusual, though it'll probably only annoy people diffing spec files Nothing too difficult to fix for an experienced packager, and only 1 and 2 dangerous. Thank you for continuing to add fonts to Fedora. -- 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