Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457947 --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-16 02:14:32 EDT --- > The correct upstream name is Old Standard That is not a valid package name. :) > However upstream has asked us to rename if we rebuilt from sfds > I guess 69oldstandard is as good as any renaming (though I'd have used > 69-old-standard-fonts) I assumed that meant the name of the Fonts not the package itself? The 69 is meaningless to me: as far as I can tell it is just an erroneous prefix coming from the fontconfig conf file priortity?? (I might be almost tempted to suggest then let's not bother to rebuild, but anyway.) old-standard-sfd-fonts, anyone? -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review