[Bug 542461] Review Request: digna-fonts - Handwriting font

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Dec 8 22:11:28 UTC 2009

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
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?,
                   |                            |needinfo?(musuruan at gmail.co
                   |                            |m)

--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>  2009-12-08 17:11:27 EDT ---
Sorry for taking so long to review, I monitor fedora-fonts-bugs-list but only
check for "wild" font package submissions when I have some free time.

Anyway, review :

1. (comment) The font could probably be classified as cursive, but then the
boundary between "fantasy handwriting" and "realistic handwriting" is a bit
See /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/fontconfig-generics.txt

2. (comment) The fontconfig templates have been tweaked a little in
fontpackages-devel, though the old templates you used will still work fine

3. (blocking) Since the font family name is "Digna's Handwriting" the package
should be named *dignas-handwriting-fonts

4. (blocking) Since this font is distributed via the Open Font LiBrary project,
the package should be named oflb-dignas-handwriting-fonts

5. (non-blocking) There is no usable licensing statement in the font file, and
it is not distributed with a detached .txt licensing file, so the only
licensing trace is the OFL logo on OFLB. Since a web site can vanish at any
time it would be nice to ask upstream to distribute the font file with a
detached .txt licensing file in a zip archive (even better if the licensing
info is also added to the font metadata). If upstream does not want to joining
the copy of a mail where they state the font is OFL to the package as %doc
would be better than nothing.

6. (non-blocking) fontlint is not happy with this font, it has some problems
upstream should look at (cf attached repo-font-audit report)

7. (non-blocking) repo-font-audit detected partial lang coverage in the font,
it'd be nice if upstream completed the partial languages (though, at this date,
it may be difficult)

8. (non-blocking) please add a page describing this font on the wiki so it is
documented with other Fedora fonts:
Since you're self-packaging the font, it does not need to be very exhautive,
just to provide minimal info about the font

Anyway this is a very clean package and apart from the naming issues there is
little to complain of, it should not be too hard to get it to approvable state

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