https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492475 Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #3) > Thanks for your review! > > Fonts source are provided but they are compiled with makeotf, part of Adobe > Font Development Kit for OpenType (AFDKO), a non free software. > OK, a comment would be good then. There is another discussion over on the hack-fonts review about using python-fontmake to script their builds; I'm not sure if this would be a possible avenue for upstream. And this is not yet packaged in Fedora, but soon. > > For Versionning, I followed this rule: > > >Do not trust font metadata versionning[4], unless you've checked upstream does > >update versions on file changes. When in doubt use the timestamp of the most > >recent font file as version, for example 20081231. > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template > > Although font metadatas provide versions, these are not the same for every > file, and if I choose the higher number, there's no guarantee a new release > would just update one of the other font file. > Ah, I see; that seems to be a good practice for upstreams that just dump the result somewhere... > >The spec uses a date but pulls from a commit; this doesn't follow the snapshot versioning guidelines. > > Upstream didn't tag a release, beside saying "Here's version 1". I,ve asked > them a Github release. > ... but since they're using git, maybe they can take advantage of that to do proper tagging. > >Speaking of licensing, MIT is not one of the recommended or explicitly approved licenses for fonts > > I don't think this is an issue, this page only list font licenses and the > issue with GPL doesn't apply to MIT since it allows embedding. ("Good font > licenses allow embedding"). > I actually found the same list on the main licensing page as well: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Font_Licenses I'm inclined to agree with you, but since you have to wait for some correspondence from upstream, maybe you can confirm with legal@ in the meantime. Maybe the only downside is that MIT gives up more rights than font publishers traditionally like and there's really no effect on Fedora itself? (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #4) > >Also, I wasn't exactly sure how to test this out. If I open the file using gnome-font-viewer, the display seems to be gibberish. > > I've tested the font with LibreOffice Writer: select one of the font, and > tyoe one of the example: Ah, good to know LO supports these features. One more really small thing: the slash can be removed here: %install mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_fontdir} -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
