[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1058044] Brazilian Keyboard layout not working in Fedora 20 (lack of slash and backslash keys)
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058044
Justin M. Forbes <jforbes(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?
--- Comment #15 from Justin M. Forbes <jforbes(a)redhat.com> ---
*********** MASS BUG UPDATE **************
We apologize for the inconvenience. There is a large number of bugs to go
through and several of them have gone stale. Due to this, we are doing a mass
bug update across all of the Fedora 20 kernel bugs.
Fedora 20 has now been rebased to 3.17.2-200.fc20. Please test this kernel
update (or newer) and let us know if you issue has been resolved or if it is
still present with the newer kernel.
If you have moved on to Fedora 21, and are still experiencing this issue,
please change the version to Fedora 21.
If you experience different issues, please open a new bug report for those.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=suHzT4InFh&a=cc_unsubscribe
9 years, 6 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1162148] Review Request: labiryntowy-fonts - Conscript (artifical font) letters consist of vertical and horizontal bars. No matter their thickness.
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1162148
Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(lkundrak(a)v3.sk) |
--- Comment #12 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> ---
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #11)
> Lubomir,
> First, this package is not following Fonts packaging guidelines.
Could you please be more specific?
I've done my best reading through the guidelines and couldn't find a single
violation. That said, none of my packages is a font package and I could be
wrong.
> Second,
> I have not seen the package submitter done any reviews and you sponsored.
> How can you be so sure that package submitter knows packaging well.
I've gained a reasonable confidence by getting talking to the submitter and
getting him address issues in his own package. My understanding is that doing
informal reviews is a way to attract sponsor's attention while the decision is
of the sponsor. I'm able to be responsible for quality of his package.
> Third,
> at least you should have let package submitter submit the srpm that fixes
> issues raised in comment#6 and then approved this package.
Eh? It might not be obvious as he didn't add a comment to Bugzilla, but the
actually updated the src.rpm in place.
> Please revoke this package approval. Guide the package submitter on how to
> follow fonts packaging guidelines.
Well, it would be helpful to provide an example of a violation. While I believe
you didn't make that up, I can not see any problem. The package looks all sane
to me and you didn't prove that wrong.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=b5ac9XkQIw&a=cc_unsubscribe
9 years, 6 months