Bug 225794: Merge Review: ghostscript-fonts Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Component: Package Review Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> has denied Tim Waugh <twaugh@xxxxxxxxxx>'s request for fedora-review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225794 ------- Additional Comments from Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (In reply to comment #2) > 6.0 is an older release (see the timestamp). Worst than that, they are exactly the same thing. The bits are exactly the same! I would still recommend using 6.0, so people won't think we are not using the latest version in Fedora. More random notes: * Your new URL is still not good. The tarball is not provided from the sourceforge servers, and not any real info either. It's a dead project. It just says go to GNU for more info. Use either http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/ghostscript/ or http://www.gnu.org/software/ghostscript/. The second is preferred, as its more user oriented. (BLOCKER) * The URL in the Source line does not work anymore either. Use http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/ghostscript/gnu-gs-fonts-std-%{version}.tar.gz * You should change the "Requires: fontconfig" line to different lines for requirements after installation and uninstallation. Currently, one can ask rpm/yum to remove both fontconfig and ghostscript-fonts and fontconfig may get removed before ghostscript-fonts, making the post uninstallation scripts fail. A similar scenario can happen with installation. Also, you need to have mkfontscale, mkfontdir, and chkfontpath during some of these. (BLOCKER) Suggested lines: Requires: fontconfig Requires(post): /usr/bin/mkfontscale /usr/bin/mkfontdir Requires(post): /usr/sbin/chkfontpath Requires(post): fontconfig Requires(postun): /usr/sbin/chkfontpath Requires(postun): fontconfig * Copy the files during the %install section using the '-p' option of cp (or use install -p). * Have an empty %build section. * Use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share in the %files section. Also consider adding a "/" at the end to show that we are actually including a directory and files in there. * There is nothing in the source tarball that says the license of the files is GPL, as the license field of the spec file says. They may as well be proprietary software, as far as a random observer can tell. Since contacting upstream for including a license may not be trivial, the spec file should at least document why we have made sure this is licensed under the GPL. (BLOCKER) * The summary ends with a dot. It shouldn't. * I don't think the use of parenthesized "(TM)" is really necessary in the Summary line. The Fedora EULA already says that all trademarks are owned by their respective owners. * The part of the description that says you'll need to install this for ghostscript to work is not that important to be worth a mention. That is simply a Requires line in the ghostscript package. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review