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=492900 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 15:43:19 EDT --- Initial review: 1. you have some stray %defines, we're supposed to use %globals nowadays 2. I'd use the same priority as cosmetica, unless you want this font to always come first 3. I'd use the substitution template /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/substitution-font-template.conf and add two substitution blocks, one to tell this font can be used in stead of Optima if Optima is not present, and the other to do the same for "MgOpen Cosmetica" (and you can probably open a bug on the mgopen package to make its packager return the courtesy and add a rule that says Cosmetica can be used in stead of Epigrafica) 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 6. rpmlint warns of epigrafica-fonts.src: W: invalid-license MgOpen epigrafica-fonts.src: W: strange-permission convert-to-ttf.pe 0755 At least the second one can probably be dealt with easily -- 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