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=542461 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(musuruan@xxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-08 17:11:27 EDT --- Sorry for taking so long to review, I monitor fedora-fonts-bugs-list but only check for "wild" font package submissions when I have some free time. Anyway, review : 1. (comment) The font could probably be classified as cursive, but then the boundary between "fantasy handwriting" and "realistic handwriting" is a bit fuzzy See /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/fontconfig-generics.txt 2. (comment) The fontconfig templates have been tweaked a little in fontpackages-devel, though the old templates you used will still work fine 3. (blocking) Since the font family name is "Digna's Handwriting" the package should be named *dignas-handwriting-fonts 4. (blocking) Since this font is distributed via the Open Font LiBrary project, the package should be named oflb-dignas-handwriting-fonts 5. (non-blocking) There is no usable licensing statement in the font file, and it is not distributed with a detached .txt licensing file, so the only licensing trace is the OFL logo on OFLB. Since a web site can vanish at any time it would be nice to ask upstream to distribute the font file with a detached .txt licensing file in a zip archive (even better if the licensing info is also added to the font metadata). If upstream does not want to joining the copy of a mail where they state the font is OFL to the package as %doc would be better than nothing. 6. (non-blocking) fontlint is not happy with this font, it has some problems upstream should look at (cf attached repo-font-audit report) 7. (non-blocking) repo-font-audit detected partial lang coverage in the font, it'd be nice if upstream completed the partial languages (though, at this date, it may be difficult) 8. (non-blocking) please add a page describing this font on the wiki so it is documented with other Fedora fonts: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#1 Since you're self-packaging the font, it does not need to be very exhautive, just to provide minimal info about the font Anyway this is a very clean package and apart from the naming issues there is little to complain of, it should not be too hard to get it to approvable state -- 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