[Bug 1822847] Review Request: vl-gothic-fonts - Japanese TrueType fonts

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847

Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+



--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Quick review:

1. obligatory rpmlint check:

vl-gothic-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospace ->
mono space, mono-space, aerospace
vl-gothic-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/vl-gothic-fonts/README.sazanami
vl-gothic-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospace -> mono
space, mono-space, aerospace
vl-gothic-fonts.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE3}
vl-gothic-fonts.src:47: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE4}
vl-gothic-fonts.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: %{name}-1331050.patch
vl-gothic-fonts.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: %{name}-p-1331050.patch
vl-gothic-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation
vl-pgothic-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospace ->
mono space, mono-space, aerospace
vl-pgothic-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/vl-pgothic-fonts/README.sazanami

Please remove the commented lines and fix the readmes using %linuxtext or
another method. For the patch part, rpmlint is mistaken, do as you wish

2. font installation check:

$ fc-scan -f
"%{family[0]};%{style[0]};%{fullname[0]};%{width};%{weight};%{slant};%{fontversion};%{file}\n"
 /usr/share/fonts/vl*fonts  |sort -t ';' -k1,1d -k4,4n -k5,5n -k6,6n -k2,2d
-k7,7dr | uniq | column --separator ';' -t 
VL Gothic   regular  VL Gothic   100  80  0  138936 
/usr/share/fonts/vl-gothic-fonts/VL-Gothic-Regular.ttf
VL PGothic  regular  VL PGothic  100  80  0  138936 
/usr/share/fonts/vl-pgothic-fonts/VL-PGothic-Regular.ttf

The regular (minuscule) is certainly unusual and may trip some applications

3. spec comparison against official Fedora templates OK (lots of dead commented
lines that should be removed)

4. since we only ship OpenType font families nowadays, maybe it is not useful
to remind the font family format in Summary and description

5. You have some mixed tab/space indenting in the spec

Otherwise, looks good, thanks for the conversion

APPROVED


-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux