fonts-bugs July 2008

fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org

26 participants
487 discussions

Start a nNew thread

[Bug 456527] Review Request: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family
by Red Hat Bugzilla 28 Jul '08

28 Jul '08

1 0

[Bug 456527] Review Request: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family
by Red Hat Bugzilla 28 Jul '08

28 Jul '08

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527 rbhalera(a)redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |NEW Flag|needinfo?(rbhalera(a)redhat.co| |m) | ------- Additional Comments From rbhalera(a)redhat.com 2008-07-28 06:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > I'll start the review process now but since I'll be unavailable till september > in a few days someone else will probably have to finish it (or you'll have to > wait or be very reactive) Thanks. > > 2. Gentium Basic is OFL, not GPL > Oops. My fault. > http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/render_download.php?site_id=nrsi&format=… > > 8. Since the font is effectively a limited Gentium with more faces, you need to > teach fontconfig to substitute it to Gentium (and the Gentium packager will need > to do it the other way). Look how it's done for dejavu and dejavu lgc, that's > just a little fontconfig file to add I am little unsure about what to substitute for faces. The families are generically serif for all the fonts in this package. -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

1 0

[Bug 456345] Review Request: sportrop-fonts - A multiline decorative font
by Red Hat Bugzilla 28 Jul '08

28 Jul '08

1 0

[Bug 456345] Review Request: sportrop-fonts - A multiline decorative font
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jul '08

27 Jul '08

1 0

[Bug 225618] Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jul '08

27 Jul '08

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225618 besfahbo(a)redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |NEW Flag|needinfo?(besfahbo(a)redhat.co| |m) | ------- Additional Comments From besfahbo(a)redhat.com 2008-07-27 12:59 EST ------- Nicolas, can't we either close this OBSOLETE, or you make whatever changes you like? :) -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

1 0

[Bug 456345] Review Request: sportrop-fonts - A multiline decorative font
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jul '08

27 Jul '08

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: sportrop-fonts - A multiline decorative font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456345 nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net 2008-07-27 12:46 EST ------- - | MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package… rpmlint is broken in rawhide by the new rpm and I've no time to locate another copy OK | MUST: The package must be named according to the Package… OK | MUST: The spec file name must match the base package… OK | MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines… OK | MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved… OK | MUST: The License field in the package spec file must… OK | MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the… - | MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK | MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. - | MUST: The sources used to build the package must match… Didn't check the srpm. the spec works fine with the upstream sip OK | MUST: The package must successfully compile and build… N/A | MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build N/A | MUST: All build dependencies must be listed… N/A | MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly… N/A | MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared… N/A | MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable… OK | MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates OK | MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files OK | MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK | MUST: Each package must have a %clean section OK | MUST: Each package must consistently use macros OK | MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable N/A | MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc N/A | MUST: If a package includes something as %doc… N/A | MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A | MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A | MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must… N/A | MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix… N/A | MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must… N/A | MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, N/A | MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include… OK | MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already OK | MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST… OK | MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. N/A | SHOULD: If the source package does not include license - | SHOULD: The description and summary section … translations… OK | SHOULD: The package builds in mock - | SHOULD: The package builds on all supported architectures OK | SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package… OK | SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane… N/A | SHOULD: Subpackages other than devel should usually require base… N/A | SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on… N/A | SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of shortlist… APPROVED -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

1 0

[Bug 456345] Review Request: sportrop-fonts - A multiline decorative font
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jul '08

27 Jul '08

1 0

[Bug 456345] Review Request: sportrop-fonts - A multiline decorative font
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jul '08

27 Jul '08

1 0

[Bug 456527] Review Request: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jul '08

27 Jul '08

1 0

[Bug 225618] Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla 27 Jul '08

27 Jul '08

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bitstream-vera-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225618 nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(besfahbo(a)redhat.co | |m) -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

1 0

← Newer
1
...
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
...
49
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs July 2008