Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
Summary: Review Request: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: smallvil@get9.net QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://get9.net/rpm/un-fonts-extra.spec SRPM URL: http://get9.net/rpm/un-fonts-extra-1.0-1.src.rpm Description: This package provides more improved free Korean Truetype fonts.
Dennis Jang
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| |
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |453016
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From smallvil@get9.net 2008-06-28 07:23 EST ------- Summary: Un series Korean TrueType fonts
Spec URL: http://get9.net/rpm/un-fonts-extra.spec SRPM URL: http://get9.net/rpm/un-fonts-extra-1.0.2.080608-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: This is a set of Korean TrueType fonts. Un-fonts is comes from the HLaTeX as type1 fonts in 1998 by Koaunghi Un It converted to TrueType with the FontForge(PfaEdit) by Won-kyu Park in 2003. This package has only the most common font families. Install un-fonts-core for additional fonts.
#1 Rebuild and repackaging for rpmlint #2 Changed package name to Un series Korean TrueType fonts #3 Summary and description of the changes, added to Korean #4 Added %define archiveversion 080608, because 080608 is snapshot version #5 I have a problem in korean spacing words for rpmlint. I don't fix it #6 fixed License: GPLv2+
-- Problem #5 # rpmlint -i un-fonts-extra.spec un-fonts-extra.spec:25: W: non-break-space line 25 The spec file contains a non-break space, which looks like a regular space in some editors but can lead to obscure errors. It should be replaced by a regular space.
un-fonts-extra.spec:27: W: non-break-space line 27 The spec file contains a non-break space, which looks like a regular space in some editors but can lead to obscure errors. It should be replaced by a regular space.
un-fonts-extra.spec:28: W: non-break-space line 28 The spec file contains a non-break space, which looks like a regular space in some editors but can lead to obscure errors. It should be replaced by a regular space.
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs- | |list@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-04 17:16 EST ------- 1. Please complete http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UN_Extra_fonts 2. Please make sure you've performed the other font packager actions documented on phase 2 of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle
Package review will follow
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-04 17:29 EST ------- Spec review of http://get9.net/rpm/un-fonts-extra.spec-1
I see you've strayed quite a bit from our official template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Annotated_fonts_spec_template (checked with meld)
1. Most of your changes look harmless but please do make sure you use the official scriplets and not something else.
2. Also I'm not really sure about the %build %{nil} thing
3. If you can please have upstream publish the sfd files they use and rebuild the fonts from sfds in your package
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-04 17:31 EST ------- 4. and do check your summary and description, so they're different from un-core-fonts
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-04 17:37 EST ------- 5. if upstream has not released a 1.0.2 version yet, and 1.0.2.080608 is an alpha/beta/pre-release of 1.0.2:
A. use 1.0.2 as version B. use a 0.X.%{alphatag} release with %{alphatag}=080608
( see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_package... )
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-04 17:42 EST ------- 6. I'd really name the package un-extra-fonts. un-fonts-extra/un-fonts-core makes it look like they're both subpackages of the same srpm
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(smallvil@get9.net)
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-04 17:46 EST ------- That's all for the informal review. Since a formal review is very time consuming, I'll wait till those first remarks are taken into account before going through the whole http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines list
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
smallvil@get9.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(smallvil@get9.net)|
------- Additional Comments From smallvil@get9.net 2008-07-05 11:56 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4)
- and do check your summary and description, so they're different from
un-core-fonts
i see,
un fonts package will be two kinds of fonts family.
un-core-fonts and un-extra-fonts, So I used package name in the original package
and i'll repackaging in 1.0
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(smallvil@get9.net)
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-06 07:33 EST ------- Ok. Please ping me there when you have a new spec ready.
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
smallvil@get9.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(smallvil@get9.net)|
------- Additional Comments From smallvil@get9.net 2008-07-06 08:29 EST ------- Summary: Un Extra families Korean TrueType fonts
Spec URL: http://get9.net/rpm/1.0/un-extra-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://get9.net/rpm/1.0/un-extra-fonts-1.0.1-3.fc9.src.rpm Description: This is a set of Korean TrueType fonts. Un-fonts come from the HLaTeX type1 fonts made by Koaunghi Un in 1998. They were converted to TrueType with FontForge(PfaEdit) by Won-kyu Park in 2003.
Extra families (10 fonts) * UnPen, UnPenheulim: script * UnTaza: typewriter style * UnBom: decorative * UnShinmun * UnYetgul: old Korean printing style * UnJamoSora, UnJamoNovel, UnJamoDotum, UnJamoBatang
Install un-core-fonts for additional fonts.
and 1.0.2-pre packaging
http://get9.net/rpm/1.0.2-080608/un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.3.080608.fc9.src.rpm http://get9.net/rpm/1.0.2-080608/un-extra-fonts.spec
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From smallvil@get9.net 2008-07-06 08:33 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9)
Ok. Please ping me there when you have a new spec ready.
revert to the 1.0 stable release
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-06 11:54 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=311102) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=311102&action=view) spec diff
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-06 12:03 EST ------- So:
1. I've posted a diff you may want to consider, changing your spec a little so it's closer to our templates and easier to review
2. this diff is against the 1.0.2 pre-version spec. I'll let you judge of the version to package, you're better qualified than me and given the timespan between the stable and current version using stable may not necessarily be a good idea.
3. please update http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UN_Extra_fonts as requested on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#2.a
4. As noted on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts since upstream chose a GPL license, please get it to clarify its position WRT GPLv3 and at least add the FSF font exception to their GPL text. If they don't answer in a week, proceed as usual (but no embedding exception sucks for korean users)
5. if possible have upstream release sfds and build from them
6. since this font set includes many fonts, it's probably a good idea to write a fontconfig ruleset so fontconfig puts them in the right families (sans-serif, serif, monospace; cursive, fantasy)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEEDINFO Flag| |needinfo?(smallvil@get9.net)
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-06 12:06 EST ------- 3. and 4. are a MUST (for 4. at least asking, since we won't block on no answer)
1. 5. 6. are a SHOULD, but you can pass on them if you don't agree with them
Anyway this version is much closer to review acceptance, thank you for your work
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
smallvil@get9.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(smallvil@get9.net)|
------- Additional Comments From smallvil@get9.net 2008-07-06 13:07 EST ------- 1. ok 3. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UN_Extra_fonts -updated wiki page
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-06 13:41 EST ------- Please don't forget to change the wiki page status next time. Anyway, please do 4. and at least look at the others now.
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From smallvil@get9.net 2008-07-06 21:09 EST ------- Stable release 1.0.1-4 Spec URL: http://get9.net/rpm/4/1.0/un-extra-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://get9.net/rpm/4/1.0/un-extra-fonts-1.0.1-4.fc9.src.rpm Diff URL: http://get9.net/rpm/4/1.0/un-extra-fonts-1.0.1.spec-4.patch
pre-release 1.0.2-0.4.080608 Spec URL: http://get9.net/rpm/4/1.0.2-080608/un-extra-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://get9.net/rpm/4/1.0.2-080608/un-extra-fonts-1.0.2- 0.4.080608.fc9.src.rpm Diff URL: http://get9.net/rpm/4/1.0.2-080608/un-extra-fonts-1.0.2.spec-4.patch
- Refined .spec literal
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-07-07 00:48 EST ------- Nicolas, thank you for taking this review, but isn't it better we finish un-fonts-core first, otherwise we are going to be duplicating a lot of review work across the two packages. Once the core review is settled the extra package review should be straightforward.
I am not sure it is a good idea to rename the package from the upstream name. I feel more comfortable just keeping the upstream naming, and I think our packaging guidelines should allow and encourage that.
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-07 04:30 EST ------- (In reply to comment #18)
I am not sure it is a good idea to rename the package from the upstream name.
We have the case here of an upstream naming that's very close to our own conventions, so it's not so clear cut. But in other cases we don't hesitate to rename, so I don't see why not there.
IMHO (and Debian has gone this way too lately) we'll need someday to review all our font package names to be more strict and consistent. Consistency pays big time with users and upstream namings are sadly not consistent at all.
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: un-fonts-extra - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From smallvil@get9.net 2008-07-08 05:17 EST ------- I think so un-fonts and un-fonts-extra, I wish that I think will be more comfortable. un-fonts-core and un-core-fonts are too uncomfortable or the naming
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: un-extra-fonts - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: un-fonts- |Review Request: un-extra- |extra - Korean TrueType |fonts - Korean TrueType |fonts |fonts
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: un-extra-fonts - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-13 04:28 EST ------- un-fonts and un-extra-fonts would be ok with me. And I like your spec file. But I'll wait for Jens to be finished with un-code before approving this one
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: un-extra-fonts - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-07-13 22:11 EST ------- Hmm I think we should stick with un-core-fonts since that is what upstream calls them.
Probably subpackaging un-extra-fonts is not necessary like un-core-fonts though.
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: un-extra-fonts - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-07-14 12:42 EST ------- Our aim when subpackaging is to help users. If Dennis Jang feels subpackaging and making possible to install only subsets of un-extras will make users happy, he should subpackage. OTOH if he thinks most users will always want the whole set, he can pass.
Above all we want to avoid situations when users do not install un-extras at all because they feel it's too bulky for their usb key/livecd/micro-laptop/etc (while they would have installed a smaller subset happily).
But this is something only a user of this language can decide on. I'll happily approve a guidelines-compliant un-extra package (subpackaged or not) as soon as you're done with un-core
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: un-extra-fonts - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453017
------- Additional Comments From petersen@redhat.com 2008-07-14 21:25 EST ------- Yep, agreed: I was just trying to make the point that I consider subpackaging a blocker for un-core but optional (ie up to the maintainer) for un-extra. :)
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=453017
--- Comment #26 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2008-08-18 03:57:44 EDT --- (And un-core-fonts is approved though still pending cvs.)
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=453017
Bug 453017 depends on bug 453016, which changed state.
Bug 453016 Summary: Review Request: un-core-fonts - Korean TrueType fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453016
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=453017
--- Comment #27 from Dennis Jang smallvil@get9.net 2008-09-06 21:25:41 EDT --- cvs done.
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=453017
--- Comment #28 from Dennis Jang smallvil@get9.net 2008-09-06 21:29:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #27)
cvs done.
So sorry, un-core-fonts is cvs done.
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=453017
--- Comment #29 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2008-10-01 22:29:33 EDT --- Will you update this un-extra-fonts package submission in line with the final un-core-fonts package when you have time? :)
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=453017
--- Comment #30 from Dennis Jang smallvil@get9.net 2008-10-07 21:04:00 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=319715) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=319715) un-extra-fonts.spec-5.patch
Spec file - http://get9.net/rpm/5/un-extra-fonts.spec
- add subpackages with a macro - add description
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=453017
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(smallvil@get9.net | |)
--- Comment #31 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-10-12 08:57:09 EDT --- Thank you for continuing to work on this. Anyway:
1. please use lowercase-only package names 2. please add a fontconfig file to each font so it's sorted in the right category 3. please use more descriptive package descriptions so users actually know what they're downloading 4. please make sure the fontconfig scriptlets are actually included in every package
Here is a rough draft on how it should be done (I really should be reviewing other font packages instead of rewriting individual package submissions) http://nim.fedorapeople.org/un-extra-fonts.spec http://nim.fedorapeople.org/un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.6.080608.fc10.src.rpm
It still needs: 1. proofing and completing of the package descriptions. 2. checking each font is assigned to the correct fontconfig generic family 3. checking the 66 priority is all right (with japanese people at least I think)
Some of the changes are probably interesting for un-core as well.
Please make all of those changes so I can move to the formal review step.
Also the previous remarks on having upstream take a position on GPLv3 / adding font exception / providing sfd sources still stand though we should probably not block on them.
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=453017
--- Comment #32 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-10-12 11:27:18 EDT --- Also note that the conf.d/conf.avail changes depend on the discussion of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correctio...) which is not an official Fedora guideline yet (and may change during review)
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=453017
Dennis Jang smallvil@get9.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(smallvil@get9.net | |) |
--- Comment #33 from Dennis Jang smallvil@get9.net 2008-10-13 05:04:37 EDT --- Spec URL: http://smallvil.fedorapeople.org/rpm/un-fonts/extra/0.7/un-extra-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://smallvil.fedorapeople.org/rpm/un-fonts/extra/0.7/un-extra-fonts-1.0.2...
-fixed subpackage description and fontconfig
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=453017
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #311102|0 |1 is obsolete| | Attachment #319715|0 |1 is obsolete| |
--- Comment #34 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-10-13 17:12:16 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=320232) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=320232) Kill conf.avail stuff
Thank you for being reactive.
Unfortunately that means the use of conf.avail is far too premature (the guideline change process has uncovered problems that won't be fixed short-term)
Please apply this patch to use strict guidelines fontconfig install in the meanwhile.
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=453017
--- Comment #35 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-10-13 17:27:46 EDT --- 1. Anyway, if you revert the conf.avail stuff the package is APPROVED.
You can continue from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a now. Please don't forget the comps and wiki bits.
2. Please apply whatever fixes are relevant to the un-core-fonts packages. If un-core-fonts extra fontconfig files are 66, that means un-core-fonts fontconfig files probably need to be 65 (and you need to check with Jens Petersen that does not break japanese).
Lastly, do continue to ask upstream : 3. to add the FSF font exception to their licensing. 4. to publish sfds
This font package was unusually complex. Congratulations on staying with us so far :)
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=453017
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net |smallvil@get9.net Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #36 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-10-13 17:30:30 EDT --- Dennis, from now on everything is in your hands
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=453017
Dennis Jang smallvil@get9.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #37 from Dennis Jang smallvil@get9.net 2008-10-13 21:41:43 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: un-extra-fonts Short Description: Un Extra families Korean TrueType fonts Owners: smallvil Branches: devel F-9 F-8 InitialCC: smallvil Cvsextras Commits: yes
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=453017
--- Comment #38 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala huzaifas@redhat.com 2008-10-15 05:56:58 EDT --- cvs done
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=453017
Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala huzaifas@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
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=453017
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-10-15 13:40:46 EDT --- un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.7.080608.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.7.080608.fc8
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=453017
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-10-15 13:42:01 EDT --- un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.7.080608.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.7.080608.fc9
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=453017
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #41 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2008-10-16 02:43:48 EDT --- I added it to comps-f10.
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=453017
--- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-11-06 21:53:39 EDT --- un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.7.080608.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=453017
--- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2008-11-06 21:57:24 EDT --- un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.7.080608.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla