Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: wqy-bitmap-fonts - a fine-tuned Chinese bitmap font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230560 petersen@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: wqy-bitmap- |Review Request: wqy-bitmap- |fonts - a fine-tuned CJK |fonts - a fine-tuned Chinese |bitmap font |bitmap font ------- Additional Comments From petersen@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-11 08:46 EST ------- Ok I tested the font now in gedit. While it looks nice I can't honestly say that the font is suitable for native Japanese. The kana (hiragana and katakana) look fine, (though I noticed some misalignment between some hiragana and other glyphs at 10 and 11pt), but the kanji do standout in eyes of Japanese i am afraid. (I can attach some screenshots if you are interested to see some examples.:) A few more comments: - Is there any particular reason for using a subdir (wenquanyi/wqy-bitmapfont) for the fonts? Do you expect other fonts in wenquanyi/ in the future? - You don't really need to include all the upstream changelog details in spec file at least not for the initial package. Usually starting with something like: %changelog *Sun Feb 18 2007 Qianqian Fang <fangq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 0.8.0-1 - initial packaging for Fedora (#230560) would be sufficient. - I see wqy-bitmapfont-pcf-0.8.1-7.tar.gz was released upstream, after wqy-bitmapfont-pcf-0.8.0-6.tar.gz, how about changing the upstream version numbering scheme? Eg why not just number the next release wqy-bitmapfont-pcf-0.8.2.tar.gz say? :) - AFAICT the md5sum of the tarball in the srpm and the one on sourceforge are different. The package tarball must be identical to the upstream released tarball. -- 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