[Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Dec 10 04:08:37 UTC 2008

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri at yahoo.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |orcanbahri at yahoo.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |orcanbahri at yahoo.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri at yahoo.com>  2008-12-09 23:08:36 EDT ---
Thanks for this package. The font packaging guidelines always seemed like a
maze to me. I hope this will make things a lot easier. I have a few comments
and questions:

* rpmlint says:
   fontpackages-devel.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rpm-fonts-devel
   fontpackages-filesystem.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided
Is there a particular reason why you don't provide the obsoletes? I also can't
seem to find these packages in our db. Do we really need these obsoletes?

   fontpackages-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation
This can be ignored.

* The license tag should be: LGPLv3+

* We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)

* Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
The directories:
are already owned by filesystem and fontconfig. Why share the ownership?

- Suggestion: Since you are the upstream, you can provide a Makefile in the
source so that you don't have to do those tricks in the SPEC file.

Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

More information about the fonts-bugs mailing list