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=528675 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx |tagoh@xxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-22 17:32:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > Updated. > > Spec URL: > http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/knm-new-fixed-fonts/knm-new-fixed-fonts.spec > SRPM URL: > http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/knm-new-fixed-fonts/knm-new-fixed-fonts-1.1-8.fc13.src.rpm The packaging is sane and the current package FTBS therefore I'm going to approve it. However that does not change the fact that fontconfig can not parse 4 of the font files. IMHO you should either fix them, or drop them But this can be done as a maintainer of the new package, and the old knm_new-fonts package is no better in this regard, therefore I'll won't block on it Please check the fontconfig priorities, when you're not using the l10n template, bigger prefix means lower prio, but with the l10n locale override, bigger prefix means bigger prio, so 69 will trump any ja font with a <69 prefix (IIRC) 々々々 APPROVED 々々々 Thank you for cleaning up this historic package, I know that's not the most exciting activity :) -- 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