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 --- Comment #10 from TK009 <john.brown009@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-06 21:33:23 EDT --- I should have been clearer in my comment. This is the second time you've seen something in the review that I didn't upload. The first was the font name in the description. I thought it was somehow an error on my part. I checked for the name in the file but made no change as it wasn't there. Now the font prefix is not correct (I am not sure 61 is correct either, it was a guess after talking to another fonts packager about the setting). Both my spec file and srpm spec have 61 as the prefix, I am concerned we are not seeing the same file and I am trying to determine the cause. If Serif is not correct for generic family I will change it to Fantasy, however, I am not sure you see Serif in the file can you confirm that is what you see in the review? Again I ask this because I am concerned we are not working with the same file? -- 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