https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187337 --- Comment #10 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> --- Review: + Mock build is successful for F22(x86_64) + rpmlint output on all generated rpm looks good 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. + Source verified with upstream as (sha356sum) upstream source: d1441cca556f93ed46e7d9e83cef687a2f4f2f59be70f8676be39f3445eb0753 srpm source: d1441cca556f93ed46e7d9e83cef687a2f4f2f59be70f8676be39f3445eb0753 + License "OFL" is valid and included in source binary file + fontconfig file looks good + font metadata information is present + rest looks following packaging guidelines Suggestions: 1) "appstream-util validate coval.metainfo.xml" gave some output from which 2 lines of output need to be fixed. • style-invalid : <summary> requires sentence case • style-invalid : <p> cannot contain a hyperlink 2) I am not a fan of using "oflb-" prefix as a foundry name but let's use it as its given in the guidelines. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Clarifications => your package name will be oflb-coval-fonts 3) Not mandatory but good to have font information added to Fedora wiki. See e.g. existing pages http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Packaged_fonts When package underreview you need to set wiki page category to like http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:In-progress_fonts you will find this information in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review