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: brettfont-fonts - A handwriting font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445279 nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-06 17:28 EST ------- Only looked at the spec since the SRPM is not reachable. Anyway: 1. Spec is a textbook copy of the official template → OK 2. Source is correctly licensed and from a trusty provider → OK Approved Some optional comments 1. you do not need the cp in %prep. Just use %{SOURCE0} in %install directly (and save a few electrons) 2. for releases ≥ F9 you can drop the -f in fc-cache 3. Upstream TTF file name is fugly. Fontconfig will work the same no matter what of course but you should consider changing it to something better in the install ttf line 4. it's somewhat dangerous to use 1.0 as version for upstreams with lax release discipline. They sometimes update the file in-place later without changing the TTF metadata version (1.0 is the default for the version field in many tools, thus unfortunately it does not always mean the author really decided this was release 1.0). For this reason I've used timestamps as versions in the gfs font packages 5. bonus points if you can get upstream to release its font in a nice versioned archive with detached license text. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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