https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208842 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #1) > 1) When I ran fedora-review on this package, I see > Diff spec file in url and in SRPM I must have picked the wrong file from the "Recent" list in Nautilus, will upload the correct one ASAP. > 2) Also, its not good to package a single doc file separately. Add it in > main package only. Just add it next to %_font_pkg line. George Douros used to package the fonts along with some simple text files, that contained a brief description of each font, sometimes a changelog and sometimes a pdf with more or less the same stuff. Now he's switched to packaging the fonts with MS Word files (with descriptions, changelogs etc.). The pdfs are hosted separately on his site as "font previews". Should I keep them in the same package as the font, like you suggested, or should I drop them altogether? As far as I understand, MS Office files (which are the most useful ones in this case) should not be packaged. > 3) Change other packages also if they have -doc subpackage then drop it. Just let me know what you think is best and I will do the same for all packages. > 4) You need sponsorship in packager group. Can you do some informal reviews > on other packages waiting for their package review? I'll try to find projects close to home and if there aren't any, I'll just rely on the tools. I hope I'll have some by the end of the week. -- 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