[Bug 467507] Review Request: Rufscript-fonts - Rufscripts is a decorative handwriting based font

[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=467507

Nicolas Mailhot  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?,
                   |                            |needinfo?(sundaram@redhat.c
                   |                            |om)

--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot   2008-10-26 07:28:20 EDT ---
1. Since Minto Joseph and you are both packaging Hiran's fonts, you should get
together and interact with Hiran collectively (see bug #457709).

2. It's not a good idea to keep the versioning in the TTF filename, some apps
refer fonts by filename and will get cross with you if it changes every version

3. You should discuss with Minto if you want to adopt a common prefix for your
font packages names (for  example hiranv-rufscript-fonts and
perizia-rufscript-fonts). We've more or less started to do it for big foundries
(gfs, sil) and some individual font authors (thibault), it's probably better to
generalise the convention to have consistent naming
(please subscribe to the fonts SIG list if you haven't done so yet to get
informed of packaging convention evolutions)

4. you can drop the -f in the fc-cache invocation for releases ≥ Fedora 9
→ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsSpecTemplate

5. Some people want all Fedora-added source files in a package to be prefixed
with the package name. You don't follow this convention for your fontconfig
file. Please take inspiration from the general packaging guidelines or Minto's
package to fix it.
→ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsSpecTemplate
→ bug #457709

6. 69 is a bit low, for a latin font like rufscript something between 62 and 64
would be fine
→ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Simple_priority_list...

7. Please have upstream publish rufscript in a proper versioned archive with a
detached license file you can add in %doc

8. Please reformat your xml files with xmllint --format before submission so
they are nicely indented

9. I would have declared rufscript as a cursive font, not a sans-serif one

10. Please add a "Generic name" rule in addition to the "Registering a font in
default families" rule
→ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Generic_names
 This rule is used by fontconfig to complete your font with glyphs from other
fonts when it encounters a codepoint your font is missing
→
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Registering_a_font_i...
  This rule is used by fontconfig to identify what fonts to use when an
application requests a "cursive" font.

11. When you've written fontconfig rules you're happy with it's always a good
idea to send them upstream to be included in the font next releases (in the
versionned archive you're supposed to request)

Despite the long todo list your spec is in good shape overall and it should not
take much to get it in a state that can be approved.