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=530880
--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-11-04 04:13:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
- I used one of your spec files as a template, oops =). I have correct that
and am now using the template from fontpackages-devel.
We used to package fonts that way but it was changed for Fedora 11 to accomodate the font autoinstaller and simplify things.
- Those were choices made by the creator and I didn't feel comfortable
changing them. I have corrected all of them.
Thanks,
- The font name is not in either the Summary or the %description, only here in
the Review Request. No action needed.
It was in the spec file I checked. Maybe you published the wrong version?
- I ran repo-font-audit, rpmlint and fontlint correcting all but the warning
about the license.
Will the license issue need to be corrected before this can pass review?
No, this is not a blocker, just something it is a very good idea to fix upstream, as it confuses users when the licensing they see in font browsers is not the same the package declares (also I suppose that when Fedora does licensing audits it makes things a lot harder than it should be)
fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org