[Bug 542461] Review Request: digna-fonts - Handwriting font
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Dec 9 20:33:46 UTC 2009
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Andrea Musuruane <musuruan at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
Flag|needinfo?(musuruan at gmail.co |
--- Comment #4 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan at gmail.com> 2009-12-09 15:33:44 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> 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.
No problem. I'm not a font packager and I missed the suggestion to CC the
> 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
I choose "fantasy" because I browsed Fedora CVS for other handwriting fonts and
this is what I found:
brettfont-fonts: There is no fontconfig.conf
> 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
I renamed the package, but I found really a lot of fonts in Fedora CVS that do
not comply with this guideline. For example the aforementioned brettfont,
icelandic-fonts, asana-math-fonts, roadstencil-fonts, sportrop, etc that are
also distributed via the Open Font Library project.
> 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)
I'll mail upstream about this, but I'm not confident at all that your points
will be addressed. Upstream seems to have made only this font in its lifetime
and it did it a long ago.
> 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
Thanks for the review!
- Changed package name to comply to Font Packaging Guidelines
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