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=530857 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |dave@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-29 17:30:34 EDT --- Review: 1. typo in the description: orginaly 2. I don't think we go as far as asking to convert .ttf to .otf when upstream chose .ttf. When upstream does both, we prefer .otf, but it's fine keeping .ttf if it's upstream's choice. I doubt that for this particular font this will change anything, ttf vs otf is mostly relevant for complex fonts (this is not a criticism, the package is fine as is, just an informational note) 3. repo-font-audit notes this font could easily be extended to cover more scripts with just a little effort (many scripts are less than ten glyphs away). I'll attach the report if you want to relay it upstream ܈܈܈ APPROVED ܈܈܈ You can now continue from: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a Please do not forget the wiki gardening. Thank you for another contribution to our font package pool. ⇒ REASSIGNING -- 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