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=526633

Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redh | |at.com

--- Comment #1 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2009-10-01 02:43:45 EDT --- hi,

As always, I'm not too sure of the fontconfig. The prio seems okay? I'm not sure if its a sans-serif or a fantasy, since I can't decide if this font can be used for long professional texts. It's the Devanagari script, so could be used.

regards,

Ankur

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=526633

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |psatpute@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai | |l.com)

--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-10-01 18:21:57 EDT --- Anyway, thanks a lot for adding a new font package in the review pipe

Appart from the CSS classification I can't really help you with, here is some review:

1. non LGC font ⇒ please use a priority ≥ 65 as per fontconfig-priorities.txt

2. please ask the lohit people what they think about this font. IMHO it is highly likely one of the lohit fonts shares a common ancestry with gargi (and in that case they should at least cross-alias each other)

3. Licensing should be GPLv2+

4. (non blocking) please ask upstream to add the standard FSF GPL font exception to their licensing

5. (non blocking) description could use some meat

Anyway, this package is mostly fine, except for the classification problem.

NEEDINFO till this is resolved

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=526633

--- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-10-05 07:13:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)

(In reply to comment #3)

...

2. please ask the lohit people what they think about this font. IMHO it is

highly likely one of the lohit fonts shares a common ancestry with gargi (and in that case they should at least cross-alias each other)

while comparing lohit devanagari script fonts (marathi, hindi, konkani, nepali, sindhi and kashmiri)

There are little bit differences in lohit and Gargi i.e Gargi fonts shape are little more Bold compare to lohit, space of gargi is more than lohit there are also little bit differences in characters shape

Ok, that means that they probably were not forked from a common root after all, so no need to cross-alias

but overall as said above yes, they share common style(Sans) and ancestry.

between how corss-alias will work?

cross-alias is when package B tells fontconfig : if app asks for font A, and it is not present, use my font B instead (and the reverse in package A). We do it for DejaVuLGC/DejaVu for example. But this kind of aliasing is only worth it when fonts are very close in style or metrics, typically when two projects took the same origin font and froked it in different ways

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=526633

Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(sanjay.ankur@gmai | |l.com) |

--- Comment #7 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2009-10-05 09:11:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)

Anyway, thanks a lot for adding a new font package in the review pipe

Appart from the CSS classification I can't really help you with, here is some review:

1. non LGC font ⇒ please use a priority ≥ 65 as per fontconfig-priorities.txt

I'll check up the prio for the lohit font and fix this..

3. Licensing should be GPLv2+

Fixed. Will upload a new build in a day max.

4. (non blocking) please ask upstream to add the standard FSF GPL font

exception to their licensing

Contacted upstream, no response yet :(

5. (non blocking) description could use some meat

I copied whatever I got from the font homepage. There's no readme etc to get more from.

Anyway, this package is mostly fine, except for the classification problem.

NEEDINFO till this is resolved

(In reply to comment #6)

Ankur, please use Sans as classification and I'll approve the package (if you fixed the other bits. Also, please make sure your fontconfig prio is > Lohit Devanagari so Lohit stays the default

Okay, ill fix up the fontconfig. I cant do much about some of the other bits (stated above)

regards, Ankur

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=526633

Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #9 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-10-16 16:55:48 EDT --- Ankur,

I hope you've recovered completely and are well now

There is absolutely no problem with a review sleeping some time, what's not ok is making someone work on a review then vanishing, but as long as you come back in a reasonable delay everything is fine.

This version is good. If you hear from upstream make them write a better description.

⚺⚺⚺ APPROVED ⚺⚺⚺

You can continue from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a

I hope the process was pleasant, and that it will inspire you to package other fonts for Fedora. Please do not hesitate to suggest improvements to our organisation on the fonts mailing list.

Thank you for your contribution to our font package pool.

⇒ REASSIGNING

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=526633

Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #11 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2009-10-19 04:20:06 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gargi-fonts Short Description: A Free Unicode OpenType Font Owners: ankursinha Branches: F-12 F-11 F-10 InitialCC: fonts-sig

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=526633

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-19 15:00:07 EDT --- gargi-fonts-1.9-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gargi-fonts-1.9-2.fc10

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=526633

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-19 15:15:48 EDT --- gargi-fonts-1.9-2.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gargi-fonts-1.9-2.fc12

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=526633

--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-10-20 20:57:25 EDT --- gargi-fonts-1.9-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gargi-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-10712

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=526633

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |1.9-2.fc10 Resolution| |ERRATA

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=526633

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|1.9-2.fc10 |1.9-2.fc11