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=475593 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |orcanbahri@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |orcanbahri@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-09 23:08:36 EDT --- Thanks for this package. The font packaging guidelines always seemed like a maze to me. I hope this will make things a lot easier. I have a few comments and questions: * rpmlint says: fontpackages-devel.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rpm-fonts-devel fontpackages-filesystem.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rpm-fonts-filesystem Is there a particular reason why you don't provide the obsoletes? I also can't seem to find these packages in our db. Do we really need these obsoletes? fontpackages-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation This can be ignored. * The license tag should be: LGPLv3+ * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-) * Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The directories: /usr/share/fonts. /etc/fonts/conf.d are already owned by filesystem and fontconfig. Why share the ownership? - Suggestion: Since you are the upstream, you can provide a Makefile in the source so that you don't have to do those tricks in the SPEC file. -- 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