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=623868 --- Comment #19 from Cosimo Cecchi <ccecchi@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-02-08 12:16:20 EST --- (In reply to comment #18) > > Cosimo, could you summarize what you have changed in the spec file? We have 3 > spec files now from 3 people with 2 reviews. Nobody will be interested in doing > another futile review. Of course! - as I mentioned previously, the font is now managed using the GNOME infrastructure, and released as versioned tarballs on our servers, in sync with the GNOME release cycle, so I changed the spec to fetch files from there. - the tarballs contains now both the source files for the font and the binary, there's no need for having multiple 'SourceX' entries in the spec file for each .sfd file, so I removed those. - the fontconfig file is now shipped inside the tarball too, so there's no need for having a separate Source entry for it. - the preferred binary format for this font is OTF now, as that's the format used by the binaries in the tarball too, so I changed the fontforge build lines to use that instead of TTF. - the upstream repository now removed the Oblique variants, so I removed those from this package. - the license of the font is now OFL-only, so I removed the reference to GPL in the spec. > What we don't have is much/any time left, if this is supposed to make it to F15 > (feature freeze today). I suppose an exception could be granted for a Gnome 3 > dependency, though. Yeah, I guess so, as this is a very important package. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review