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@yahoo.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |orcanbahri@yahoo.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |orcanbahri@yahoo.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil orcanbahri@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.
fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org