https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956134 --- Comment #9 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #7) > Hm... I'm still quite new to fonts, and things are not really clear to me. > > That said, the mnmlicons font is just a set of icons and not a traditional > character font (and it's definitely not a Serif character font). All this > means, still as I understand it, that the only meaningful usecase is when > the app requests the mnmlicons font. It can't substitute for anything else, > and can't be substituted. That's why I left the fontconfig file empty, > right or wrong. > > I should have mentioned that this is packaged as a dependency of bug 957339, > a web application which bundles this font upstream. Hi Alec, I confirmed with folks over the IRC. The font should be marked as a "fantasy" font as described in /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/fontconfig-generics.txt. Please update the fontconfig file using the basic-font-template.conf file with "fantasy" as the generic name. I think the priority should be 69 too. The fontconfig-priorities.txt file only goes up to 69, and the /etc/fonts/conf.d/README file says "70 through 79 select font (adjust which fonts are available)" and I'm really unsure about what that actually implies. It only lists 60-69 for generic aliases. Much safer to just stay in that range IMO. That's all. The rest looks good. Thanks, Warm regards, Ankur -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1ISKbpZEKJ&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review