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=225617 --- Comment #12 from Pravin Satpute <psatpute@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-30 04:58:59 EDT --- pasting review comment from bug 481068, pasting only important one --------------------------------------------------- Comment #8 From Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx) 2009-09-21 17:42:02 EDT (-) [reply] ------- Private Well fc-scan shows that most of the bdf files declare themselves as "Fixed", two of them think they are "Fangsong ti" and the others are not parsable by fc-scan. So you need at minimum a 1. a foo-fixed-fonts subpackage, 2. a foo-fangsong-ti-fonts subpackage, 3. and get Behdad to look at the other files and tell you if it's a bug his side or if the files need some form of fixing. Fontconfig won't be able to use them if it can't read the font name inside. The readme says they are Lucida but fontconfig does not read readmes. Also - it would be probably cleaner to package the ucs fonts in a ucs-fixed-fonts package instead of hiding their origin in a collection package - the licensing of Fangsong ti needs to be extracted from the fonts in a .txt people can actually read. Comment #13 From Pravin Satpute (psatpute@xxxxxxxxxx) 2009-09-29 05:29:03 EDT (-) [reply] ------- Private sorry for bit late update fc-scan works fine on all *.pcf files i have done suggested changes updated spec and srpm are as follows http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts/bitmap-fonts.spec http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/bitmap-fonts/bitmap-fonts-0.3-10.fc11.src.rpm also created a new package request for ucs-fixed-fonts bug 526204 -- 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