Packaged fonts? (and regular audits?)

[Stefan Nuxoll]

This is going to be pretty common for anything that uses the bootstrap CSS framework, since glyphicons is bundled as part of it. I do not see much benefit from packaging this separately, especially as the license for the glyphicons halflings font included with bootstrap is MIT, but CC-BY from the upstream (glyphicons.org).



Stefan Nuxoll <stefan at nuxoll.eu.org<mailto:stefan at nuxoll.eu.org>>


________________________________
> Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 19:55:53 -0700 
> Subject: Packaged fonts? (and regular audits?) 
> From: davejohansen at gmail.com 
> To: devel at lists.fedoraproject.org 
>  
> During the review of cppformat, it was pointed out that it contained a  
> font that should be removed because it's packaged with Fedora (  
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1216279#c3 ). While working  
> on resolving this, I was looking into what package provided this font  
> so I could add the appropriate Requires to get the font and noticed  
> that quite a few packages also include this font: 
> yum provides "*/glyphicons-halflings-regular.ttf" 
>  
> Is this ok? And if not, then is there some way that a set of  
> fedora-review style audits could be run on existing packages to verify  
> that these sorts of things didn't accidentally slip through the  
> original review or were introduced in an update without being noticed? 
>  
> Thanks, 
> Dave 
>  
> -- devel mailing list devel at lists.fedoraproject.org  
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of  
> Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct