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: liberation-fonts - Fonts to replace commonly used Microsoft Windows Fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239884 ------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-05-13 04:01 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > 2. The license text does not seem UTF-8 encoded > > This seems a bit picky, considering we are talking about a single copyright sign. I reserve the right to be picky for highly visible packages where RH is the upstream :) > 1. Please add a source URL to the package > 2. Make sure the archive name and content match the signed archive on the RH page > > Can't really do that, since the upstream tarball is missing the License.txt > file, afaics. I'll see what I can do. Please do. > 3. For fonts tar.bz2 is probably a better idea than tar.gz > gz vs bz2 is an upstream choice and pretty irrelevant to this review. RH is the upstream there > 1. The license text is partial: it describes the exception but not the main > license. A GPL text should be joined to the package > > > I'll pass this on. > > > If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. NOK > > The current scriptlets are copied verbatim from the guidelines. > If you are not satisfied with them, lobby for a change of the > guidelines. OK. It sucks guidelines differ from what our main font packages do in practice > - please move the clean section to its usual place after %install > - it would be nice if the metadata declaration order followed the official > Fedora template > > Don't include irrelevant nitpicky details here, please. I wouldn't mind it that much if people were not likely to take this spac as a template later. But that's up to you. > - please add a FAQ or at least the contact in charge of liberation fonts as the > referenced site has limited info and no contact information. In particular > everyone involved in FLOSS fonts would like to know the rationale behind GPL > choice when the painfully achieved consensus was to go OFL for all projects > > Not a topic for the package review. You already brought this up > on the mailing lists, which is a much better forum than this bug. That's your choice. Right now you're the only identified contact so prepare for direct questions if you release the package as-is. > - relying on /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-aliases-fedora.conf means Conflicting with > fontconfig packages that do not include liberation info (major PITA). > > Why do you think so ? That does not follow at all. The main feature of the packages is fonts that alias ms core fonts. If we allow install on fontconfig-enabled system that do not have this aliasing, users won't get the expected feature (and I'm sure our marketing people will make enough noise users will expect it). Given we do not make font packages depend on fontconfig that's a Conflict > Consider working with behdad to split this file in font-specific ones > (/etc/fonts/conf.d/30-001-fedora-helvetica-alias-liberation.conf, > /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-002-fedora-helvetica-alias-nimbus.conf etc) so next time a > new font package can just drop his own file there instead of relying on a > fontconfig update > > Pleaes file a separate fontconfig bug if you think you have a working scheme > that is sufficiently better than what we have now. already done (bug #239913) but liberation fonts is the first package that clearly needs this (In reply to comment #6) > - please drop a fontconfig configuration file in /etc/fonts/conf.d/ containing > at least the "assign generic names" bit of the dejavu-lgc one. After distussion > on IRC with behdad the right prio is probably between dejavu-lgc and other fonts > (595 unless dejavu-lgc moves to 58) > > 595 is not going to work though, since it sorts before 59- Yes that's a hack and people tend to get their hacks wrong. 605 then (and moving lgc would be much cleaner) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review