Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: chisholm-banana-peels-fonts - A Decorative Serif Font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486680
Summary: Review Request: chisholm-banana-peels-fonts - A Decorative Serif Font Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: josephsmidt@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://jsmidt.fedorapeople.org/chisholm-banana-peels-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://jsmidt.fedorapeople.org/chisholm-banana-peels-fonts-20090220-1.fc10.s... Description: Banana Peels is a decorative serif font where letters look like they are made from banana peels.
rpmlint chisholm-banana-peels-fonts-20090220-1.fc10.noarch.rpm chisholm-banana-peels-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation chisholm-banana-peels-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/61-chisholm-banana-peels.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/61-chisholm-banana-peels.conf chisholm-banana-peels-fonts.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20090125-1 ['20090220-1.fc10', '20090220-1'] 1 packages and 0 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486680
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(josephsmidt@gmail | |.com)
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2009-02-23 05:49:21 EDT --- 1. The official template evolved a little lately, please use /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-simple.spec from fontpackages-devel ≥ 1.20 as target. Tools like meld can help you see the differences (you can find latest fotpackages here if it has not hit a mirror next you yet http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=7288 )
1.a replace your %define with %global
1.b. Drop this # Do not trust font metadata versionning unless you've checked upstream does # update versions on file changes. When in doubt use the timestamp of the most # recent file as version.
1.c and drop this %dir %{_fontdir}
2. The timestamp of the font file inside the zip you use as source is 20090125, please use it as version. What matters is when upstream created a file, not when you packaged it
3. The font name declared by the TTF is "Banana", that's what you need to use in your fontconfig file (OTOH a font named "Banana" with a "Peels" face/style is going to drive apps crazy, please ask upstream to rename the font to "Banana Peels" with a standard "book", "regular" or maybe "bold" face/style)
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=486680
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net
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=486680
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-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=486680
Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com 2009-07-14 02:46:21 EDT --- hi,
I see the bug has been inactive for quite sometime. I'd like to take over the font package. Joseph, if you do not wish to continue with this review,can you please close this bug so I can start a fresh one.
regards,
Ankur
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=486680
Joseph Smidt josephsmidt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |WONTFIX Flag|needinfo?(josephsmidt@gmail | |.com) |
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=486680
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-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=486680
Paul Flo Williams paul@frixxon.co.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) AssignedTo|nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net |nobody@fedoraproject.org
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla