Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: gnuplot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225849 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2007-03-15 19:47 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > > * Wouldn't it be a good idea to add directories holding truetype > > fonts located in %{_datatdir}/fonts to the gnuplot-4.0.0-refers_to.patch > > patch? > The fonts directories are changed too often to have them here. What do you exactly mean here? I think that at least the /usr/share/fonts/default/ghostscript/ /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/ directories should be there. And certainly /usr/share/fonts/bitstream-vera/ > > * A suggestion: depend on the font packages. It has pros and cons. > I'm not sure I like to discuss this with gnuplot upstream. Why do you have to discuss with upstream? It is a packaging issue. > > * I don't like the License tag. It appears not to be free software as it > > is now, although it is. Maybe it would be better to have something like > > License: Gnuplot > > And in a comment say something along > > # changes must be distributed as patches > fixed You didn't exactly do what I said, but it is not a problem. > I think the present version is right and it will help to reveal changes in new > versions. As you like. > > > > * The doc in psdoc isn't generated rightly. I suggested cd to the directory > > and > > make ps_symbols.ps ps_fontfile_doc.pdf > > > > Then distribute only > > ps_fontfile_doc.pdf ps_guide.ps ps_symbols.ps ps_file.doc > fixed >From what I see it isn't fixed at all... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review