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=530880 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(john.brown009@gma | |il.com) --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-06 16:04:02 EDT --- The spec file is now clean The font is also clean However it seems I had forgotten to check your fontconfig file (bad bad tired reviewer) and it is not clean: A. please make sure it conforms to the latest basic template in fontpackages-devel B. please make sure you use the actual font name in it (can check it with fc-cache). Fontconfig can only act on the name the font files declares, so for your rules to work you need an exact match C. Please make sure you use the correct generic family for this kind of font (see fontconfig-generics.txt in fontpackages-devel) D. It's probably not a good idea to put the font at 60, since it lacks bold, italic, etc variants. Let fonts with more variants claim the first places, and increase your prefix value (see fontconfig-priorities.txt in fontpackages-devel) Anyway that's nice progress on your part, just the last mile to go now -- 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