[Bug 461139] Review Request: Thabit-fonts from Arabeyes.org

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Oct 26 12:26:29 UTC 2008

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


Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |besfahbo at redhat.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?,
                   |                            |needinfo?(440volt.tux at gmail
                   |                            |.com)

--- Comment #23 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>  2008-10-26 08:26:27 EDT ---
I wanted to wait for a submission with a fixed name, but since I'm doing a font
review run today anyway, here is a full review.

(on http://subhodip.fedorapeople.org/Thabit-fonts-0.02-3.fc9.src.rpm)

1. Please rename package to arabeyes-thabit-fonts

2. You have a typo in Summary

3. Is upstream's URL http://www.arabeyes.org/ or
http://www.arabeyes.org/project.php?proj=Khotot (as referenced in the README) ?

4. Is the description still ok for a Thabit-only package?

5. It's harmless, but a Source2 without Source1 is strange, especially on a new

6. Please use normal %setup macro in your package. That will simplify the spec
a lot (your complex manual unpacking was only necessary because you initially
tried to stuff two fonts in a single package)

7. Since upstream uses fontforge for building, please ask upstream to publish
sfd sources and build fedora fonts from those sources (we have many packages
that do so, for example DejaVu, Liberation, Inconsolata, etc)

8. Some people want all Fedora-added source files in a package to be prefixed
with the package name. You don't follow this convention for your fontconfig
file. Please use %{name}-fontconfig.conf as suggested by

9. I don't know if 65 is the right fontconfig priority for this font. You need
to discuss it with Behdad (preferably CC-ing the fedora fonts list)

10. Please only declare thabit-related fontconfig rules in the fontconfig file
shipped with the thabit package

11. You probably want a "Generic name" rule in addition to the "Registering a
font in default families" rule in your fontconfig file
→ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Generic_names
 This rule is used by fontconfig to complete your font with glyphs from other
fonts when it encounters a codepoint your font is missing
  This rule is used by fontconfig to identify what fonts to use when an
application requests a "cursive" font.

12. Please reformat your xml files with xmllint --format before submission so
they are nicely indented with the same rules as other font packages

13. When you've written fontconfig rules you're happy with it's always a good
idea to send them upstream to be included in the font next releases (in the
versionned source archive you're supposed to request)

14. You can drop the -f flag to fc-cache for releases ≥ Fedora 9

15. OFL.txt mentions an IBM copyright. Please ask upstream to add a Fontlog.txt
to their source release archive (as recommended by SIL for OFL fonts), that
clearly identifies what other fonts were used to create this font, so Fedora
Legal can check there is no problem

16. Please make sure all the steps up to 2.a (included) have been followed in
In particular we need a wiki page that describes the font to be added to the
wiki (for release notes)

Well that's a lot of stuff to fix and it's a pity the OLPC folks didn't do a
full review before accepting this font package. I'm putting a "NEEDINFO
reporter" on this bug and the Mothanna one (since it needs more or less the
same fixes). Please remove this flag once you've fixed the previous points.

Please don't hesitate to ask questions on the fedora fonts list if there are
elements you need help with.

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