https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068463
--- Comment #7 from Luya Tshimbalanga <luya_tfz(a)thefinalzone.net> ---
Created attachment 2005075
-->
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2005075&action=edit
Review file for this package
```
%global fontfamily0 BIZ UDGothic
%global fontsummary0 Morisawa BIZ UD Gothic fonts, Japanese typeface
%global fonts0 fonts/ttf/BIZUDGothic-*.ttf
%global fontconfs0 %{SOURCE1}
%global fontdescription0 %{expand:
%{common_description}
This package provides a non-propotional sans-serif font.
}
%global fontfamily1 BIZ UDPGothic
%global fontsummary1 Morisawa BIZ UD PGothic fonts, Japanese typeface
%global fonts1 fonts/ttf/BIZUDPGothic-*.ttf
%global fontconfs1 %{SOURCE2}
%global fontdescription1 %{expand:
%{common_description}
This package provides a propotional sans-serif font.
}
Source0:
https://github.com/googlefonts/morisawa-biz-ud-gothic/archive/refs/tags/v...
Source1: %{fontpkgname0}.fontconfig.conf
Source2: %{fontpkgname1}.fontconfig.conf
BuildRequires: fontpackages-devel
BuildRequires: libappstream-glib
```
Will it be possible to differentiate both names in their packaged format to
avoid confusion? We are almost there according to the review file.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2068463
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...