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=468823 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |besfahbo@xxxxxxxxxx, | |tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |needinfo?(tagoh@xxxxxxxxxx) --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-09 16:56:39 EDT --- Since nobody bites, I'll take this. First review pass 1. you're packaging a font with a new license. While at first view it seems ok, you still need spot to approve it and put it on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts 2. please follow the font packaging process outlined on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle and in particular create a wiki page that describes your font and can be referenced in release notes (a wiki page template is available there http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_description_template ) 3. your fontconfig priority (59) is a little low, our guidelines states CJK fonts should be in the 65-69 range http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Simple_priority_lists Of course Behdad has the last say on this, so if you convince him to ok it I'll let this pass. 4. your fontconfig rule is a bit more convoluted than what we usually do. It probably works but please get Behdad to review it (and ok it there). 5. please also alias the font the other way, so fontconfig knows it should use serif fonts to complete HanaMin http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Generic_names 6. please send your fontconfig file to hanazano upstream so it's included in their next release once you're happy with it 7. you can drop the -f argument to fc-cache for releases ≥ Fedora 9 8. please use the defattr suggested by guidelines %defattr(644,root,root,755) 9. it's a little easier to review a package when the fields are in the same order as in rpmdevtool's spectemplate-fonts.spec (cosmetic, you can ignore it, just take it into account for your next font package) All in all this was a pleasant spec file to review and I'll have no problem approving it once those little problems are taken care of → NEEDINFO in the meanwhile -- 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