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 --- Comment #8 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-01 18:42:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > > 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. OFLB's web contact form is currently broken, so I'm not sure whether the message I sent actually got through or not. I'm checking on IRC to see if anyone could fix it. > > 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. Ignore my silliness here. I was typing fontpackage, not fontpackages, and grep swallowed the error. > Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a naming > convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf Also, presumably the suffix -fonts stays regardless of whether the package contains only one font or more. -- 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