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
--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2008-12-10 02:14:53 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> 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?
rpm-fonts does not exist in the repo and should not exist. These obsoletes are
only there for the people who have played with early versions of this package.
I've always intended to remove them shortly, and did so now.
> * The license tag should be: LGPLv3+
>
> * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)
Those are the correct permission and there is no drawback, and lots of
advantages, in not specifying them.
> * 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?
As posted on the guideline change plan they will be removed from those other
packages after this one is available to keep font policy in a single place.
> - 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.
You'll find out that to keep directory info in a single place, the macro file,
you'd need to play rpm tricks in this Makefile, and at this point it's stupid
to do it out of rpm spec space
New packages
http://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/fontpackages.spechttp://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/fontpackages-1.11-1.fc11.src.rpm
--
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.
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(a)yahoo.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri(a)yahoo.com> 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.
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=475661
Bug 475661 depends on bug 472635, which changed state.
Bug 472635 Summary: Google Droid fonts licensing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472635
What |Old Value |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |VERIFIED
Resolution| |UPSTREAM
Status|VERIFIED |CLOSED
--
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.
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=473836
Andrzej Nowak <epsilon(a)loiv.torun.pl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|needinfo?(epsilon(a)loiv.toru |
|n.pl) |
--- Comment #17 from Andrzej Nowak <epsilon(a)loiv.torun.pl> 2008-12-09 18:00:11 EDT ---
The problem is also present in Seamonkey for FC10. I've attached a screenshot.
I've also attached screenshots demonstrating the problem in GEDIT and OOWRITER.
I noticed that I was able to reproduce the problem there as well. The font on
the screen is liberation sans but the same thing happens with other fonts such
as Arial taken directly from MS Windows.
Do you still want me to try firefox beta?
--
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.
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
Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |475661
--
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.