https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286324 --- Comment #9 from James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> --- Updated spec and srpm: Spec URL: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/python-acme/python-acme.spec SRPM URL: https://jhogarth.fedorapeople.org/python-acme/python-acme-0.0.0-3.dev20151123.fc23.src.rpm With regards to the bundling of fonts: * Inconsolata is the wrong type of font in texlive and doesn't exist (according to dnf provides) in ttf at all in fedora. * Lato has the right type of font but being in texlive has a substantial number of dependencies it pulls in, which I'd rather not do. If this is a blocker I'd rather drop the html docs entirely and build the api docs as a man page or just plain text. I'm actually thinking the ./fonts/Lato-foo.ttf shoudl actually be in it's own lato-fonts package unbundled from texlive and have texlive-lato depend on it really so other applications can use the font without the texlive heavyweight. * Fontawesome has appropriate fontawesome-font(-web) packages so that's been unbundled. Given this is just a -doc package are these bundled fonts (with the approproate provides bundled() entry) actually a blocker? If so I'll spin up a release 4 with no html docs. -- 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