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=526607
--- Comment #8 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus(a)gmail.com> 2009-10-01
18:42:33 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> 2. the author claims he created this font in fontforge, so
it'd be a good idea
> to beg for the sfd file upstream and build the font from source in the rpm
I'll contact him and ask.
> 3. there is no licensing trace in the ttf file, and web pages are unfortunately
> not future proof. Please ask upstream to release the font in a zip file that
> includes a detached .txt licensing file (or at least use the fontforge button
> that embeds the OFL text in the .ttf)
Ditto.
OFLB's web contact form is currently broken, so I'm not sure whether the
message I sent actually got through or not. I'm checking on IRC to see if
anyone could fix it.
> 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font,
63-64 should be
> fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt)
Where's this file? I tried looking in fontpackages{,-devel} and
fontconfig{,-devel}. I was trying to go for as low a priority as possible,
since it looked that 50 is for a user override, and the number goes up from
there.
Ignore my silliness here. I was typing fontpackage, not fontpackages, and
grep
swallowed the error.
Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a
naming
convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf
Also, presumably the suffix -fonts stays regardless of whether the package
contains only one font or more.
--
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.