[Bug 452317] Review Request: heuristica-fonts - Heuristica font

[bugzilla at redhat.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=452317


Kevin Fenzi <kevin at tummy.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #17 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin at tummy.com>  2008-11-15 15:32:30 EDT ---
Sorry for the delay here... 

OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines
OK - Spec file matches base package name. 
OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. 
OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. 
See below - License (OFL)
OK - License field in spec matches
OK - License file included in package
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
OK - Sources match upstream md5sum:
7bce211edb964a2c3149e8ae6d46fc6a  heuristica-src-20080825.tar.bz2
7bce211edb964a2c3149e8ae6d46fc6a  heuristica-src-20080825.tar.bz2.1
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. 
OK - Package has a correct %clean section. 
OK - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content. 
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. 
OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install

OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. 
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. 
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. 
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. 
OK - No rpmlint output. 
OK - final provides and requires are sane.

SHOULD Items:

OK - Should build in mock. 
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described. 
OK - Should have sane scriptlets. 
OK - Should have dist tag
See below - Should package latest version

Issues: 

1. There is a newer version upstream, might update to that before importing?
20081109

2. One more thing thats confusing me on the legal front that should be
mentioned
here: The fontforge script files that are used to produce the font are under
the 
GPLv2+ license. Since they aren't shipped in the binary package or part 
of the font itself, I guess it's ok that the package license here is OFL, 
but I thought I would mention it here. 

I don't see any blockers here... so this package is APPROVED.

-- 
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.