November 2009 - fonts-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 530880] Review Request: ns-tiza-fonts - A Slab-Serif Font

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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 #14 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2009-11-07 04:42:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > C. Changed generic family to 'fantasy'. I am assuming rule #1 overrides all > other rules in fontconfig-generics.txt. fontconfig-generics.txt is a decision graph. A font could be fantasy and serif and monospace at the same time, so you need common rules for everyone to chose the same category in the same circumstances -- 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.

14 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 530880] Review Request: ns-tiza-fonts - A Slab-Serif Font

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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 #13 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2009-11-07 04:34:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > If Serif is not correct for generic family I will change it to Fantasy, > however, I am not sure you see Serif in the file can you confirm that is what > you see in the review? > Again I ask this because I am concerned we are not working with the same file? I'm behind a proxy. If you upload a file on a web server that sets expiry time to a high value I won't necessarily see the changes (a common way to avoid this is to increment the Release number each time you have a change, numbers are cheap and having several files with the same id is always dangerous Lastly, I always work from the spec in the srpm file -- 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.

14 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 530880] Review Request: ns-tiza-fonts - A Slab-Serif Font

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net |john.brown009(a)gmail.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2009-11-07 04:30:21 EDT --- Thanks I'm going to approve the package, but please do not forget to reference the licensing file in %doc (don't know if I missed this before or if your removed it since the start of review) ⌚⌚⌚ APPROVED ⌚⌚⌚ I'm going to look at Bola now and sponsor you if Bola's packaging is ok As soon as you're sponsored, you'll be able to 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 a other fonts for Fedora. Please do not hesitate to suggest improvements to our organisation or documentation on the fonts mailing list. -- 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.

14 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 530880] Review Request: ns-tiza-fonts - A Slab-Serif Font

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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 #11 from TK009 <john.brown009(a)gmail.com> 2009-11-07 02:23:29 EDT --- Spec URL: http://linuxkommando.com/dev/ns-tiza-chalk-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://linuxkommando.com/dev/ns-tiza-chalk-fonts-20080210-1.fc12.src.rpm A. Used basic template in fontpackages-devel. B. Changed the name in fontconfig to 'Tiza'. C. Changed generic family to 'fantasy'. I am assuming rule #1 overrides all other rules in fontconfig-generics.txt. D. Changed prefix from '61' to '64'. -- 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.

14 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 530880] Review Request: ns-tiza-fonts - A Slab-Serif Font

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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 #10 from TK009 <john.brown009(a)gmail.com> 2009-11-06 21:33:23 EDT --- I should have been clearer in my comment. This is the second time you've seen something in the review that I didn't upload. The first was the font name in the description. I thought it was somehow an error on my part. I checked for the name in the file but made no change as it wasn't there. Now the font prefix is not correct (I am not sure 61 is correct either, it was a guess after talking to another fonts packager about the setting). Both my spec file and srpm spec have 61 as the prefix, I am concerned we are not seeing the same file and I am trying to determine the cause. If Serif is not correct for generic family I will change it to Fantasy, however, I am not sure you see Serif in the file can you confirm that is what you see in the review? Again I ask this because I am concerned we are not working with the same file? -- 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.

14 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 530880] Review Request: ns-tiza-fonts - A Slab-Serif Font

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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 TK009 <john.brown009(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(john.brown009@gma | |il.com) | --- Comment #9 from TK009 <john.brown009(a)gmail.com> 2009-11-06 19:45:03 EDT --- I have a question, where is the '60' prefix coming from? both my uploaded spec and the spec in the srpm it is '61'. Is this set somewhere else that I've missed? -- 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.

14 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 532818] Review Request: gdouros-musica-fonts - A font for musical symbols

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=532818 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |ozamosi(a)flukkost.nu Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2009-11-06 17:19:02 EDT --- Review: 1. I'd say this is a serif font but probably does not matter much for a symbol font 2. Needs fontconfig prio < 65, nothing really exotic in there 3. repo-font audit suggests extending it to cover more scripts But his is all minor ⅏⅏⅏ APPROVED ⅏⅏⅏ Nice to see Unicode 5.2 fonts are already appearing You can now 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 a other fonts for Fedora. Please do not hesitate to suggest improvements to our organisation or documentation on the fonts mailing list. Thank you for another contribution to our font package pool. -- 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.

14 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 532817] Review Request: gdouros-analecta-fonts - An eccleastic scripts font

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=532817 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |ozamosi(a)flukkost.nu Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2009-11-06 17:02:58 EDT --- Review: 1. typo in the summary (eccleastic?) 2. should have fontconfig prefix < 65 (coptic is a greek-like script, see fontconfig-priorities.txt) Nevertheless, these are all minor problems you're quite capable to fix, an not blockers ⎘⎘⎘ APPROVED ⎘⎘⎘ You can now 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 a other fonts for Fedora. Please do not hesitate to suggest improvements to our organisation or documentation on the fonts mailing list. Thank you for another contribution to our font package pool. -- 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.

14 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 532816] Review Request: gdouros-alexander-fonts - A Greek typeface inspired by Alexander Wilson

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=532816 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2009-11-06 17:01:37 EDT --- (It may be a good idea to package the pdf of samples on the author's page as %doc BTW) -- 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.

14 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 532816] Review Request: gdouros-alexander-fonts - A Greek typeface inspired by Alexander Wilson

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=532816 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |ozamosi(a)flukkost.nu Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2009-11-06 16:44:21 EDT --- Spec is clean. Regarding the fontconfig part: 1. a Greek font belongs to the < 65 range (≥ 65 is anything that does not fit in Latin - Greek - Cyrillic, see fontconfig-priorities.txt) 2. are you sure this is a fantasy font? I seems quite usable in a professional context to me (see fontconfig-generics.txt) However both elements are quite easy to tweak even after inclusion and you've been a solid packager to far. Therefore I'm going to approve the package and let you the judge on them. ⟴⟴⟴ APPROVED ⟴⟴⟴ You can now 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 a other fonts for Fedora. Please do not hesitate to suggest improvements to our organisation or documentation on the fonts mailing list. Thank you for another contribution to our font package pool. -- 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.

14 years, 6 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs November 2009