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=526607 Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(michael.silvanus@ | |gmail.com) | --- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-01 18:13:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Thank you for submitting a new font package for review. I hope you'll find the > process smooth and friendly, please do not hesitate to tell us what could be > made better if something bugs you. > > Anyway, for the review > > 1. we use oflb as prefix for openfontlibrary fonts Ah, thanks. That's why yum search openfont did not find anything of interest > 2. the author claims he created this font in fontforge, so it'd be a good idea > to beg for the sfd file upstream and build the font from source in the rpm I'll contact him and ask. > 3. there is no licensing trace in the ttf file, and web pages are unfortunately > not future proof. Please ask upstream to release the font in a zip file that > includes a detached .txt licensing file (or at least use the fontforge button > that embeds the OFL text in the .ttf) Ditto. > 4. IMHO this font should be classified as "fantasy" not "monospace" (see > fontconfig-generics.txt in fontpackages-devel) > > 5. Why do you reference Droid Sans Mono in your fontconfig file? If that's > because you cut and pasted from the Droid file, you have clean and documented > fontconfig templates in fontpackages-devel (in Em. Guilty as charged. I recently installed it, so when looking for a reference spec, I looked there. Somehow I skipped over the notice at the top of the packaging page. > /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/). The lastest rawhide version is probably the > best reference for anything ≥ F11 (I'll probably push it to F11 if I stop > finding things to improve every other week) I'm on Rawhide, so that's good. > 6. IMHO it is wrong to alias Chalkboard or Comic Sans MS if you're not sure > Smonohand is very close both in looks and metrics. The reason being looks only > are not sufficient, if the letters are different sizes documents written will > one of the other fonts will end up repaginated with smonohand. Usually when we > alias a font is much closer than just 'looks like it' Ah, OK. > > 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font, 63-64 should be > fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt) Where's this file? I tried looking in fontpackages{,-devel} and fontconfig{,-devel}. I was trying to go for as low a priority as possible, since it looked that 50 is for a user override, and the number goes up from there. > For a first try this is a nice package, you just need to spend some time > reading the little documentation we have in fontpackages-devel and you'll be > fine. > Will do that and reupload an updated spec later today, thanks for the feedback! Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a naming convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf -- 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