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 2007-05-15 04:39 EST ------- n liberation-fonts-0.1-7.fc7.src.rpm: ☒ MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NOK I still feel declaring GPL when it's GPL v2 + additional terms is not right. I'd like the confirmation of someone closer to FESCO on this before acking ☑ MUST: If … text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc OK ☑ MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source… OK ☑ SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream… OK ☑ SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. OK To sum up, I still see two blockers: 1. the license field bit 2. fontconfig coordination. We can't push a font package hipped as core fonts replacement if the associated required fontconfig plumbing is missing. I'm pretty sure we have a "package works as advertised" MUST rule somewhere. Long-term fix is the 30-aliases file split + a rule file provided by this package. Short-term solutions lack appeal. Though since liberation fonts should end up at the top of their respective aliases list dumping a rule file at 29 or 31 may work. I'll settle with seeing a fontconfig package with updated 30-aliases queued for F7. Also I don't like the abandonware feeling of a package with no identified contact on its web site or in %doc. Though the packager and whoever @rh goes to the next text summit is going to take the blame, and I suppose I can let it pass. It's still a bad example to give, especially for internally-produced stuff. -- 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