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: monafont - Japanese font for text arts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454148 ------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-07-06 11:10 EST ------- On the spec file: 1. it's generally speaking a good idea to limit changes to the official template, that makes rebasing after guideline changes easier. So it may be a good idea to compare your spec with the template in rpmdevtools and try to limit variations. 2. as stated on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Annotated_fonts_spec_template the -f flag to fc-cache should not be necessary starting from F9 and the fontconfig packager requested its removal 3. please remove umasks 4. please add defattrs 5. it's probably a good idea to add some fontconfig rules so fontconfig knows it can substitute mona-sazanami to sazanami (same for VLGothic). See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips 6. URL could be URL: http://%{archivename}.sourceforge.net/ 7. Source0 could be (probably wrong right now): Source0: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%{archivename}/%{archivename}-%{version}.tar.bz2 8. upstream tarball includes sfd files, and I dont see fontforge in your BR. Please try to build from sfd sources if possible http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_packaging_policy#Building_from_sources 9. upstream tarball is missing a detached file with licensing statements. Please ask upstream to add it (this would be asked during formal review) This informal review is quickly degenerating in a full review *sigh* -- 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