[Bug 481009] Review request: pothana2000-fonts - Unicode compliant OpenType font for Telugu

[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=481009


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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh
                   |                            |at.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?,
                   |                            |needinfo?(sshedmak at redhat.c
                   |                            |om)




--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>  2009-01-24 06:40:52 EDT ---
1. you have two fonts in there, Pothana2000 and Vemana2000. Our guidelines call
for their packaging in different packages or subpackages
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Package_layout_for_fonts

2. now since they do not share the same version, this will difficult for you,
unless you use a timestamp as version

3. you were quite right to remove the non-free .exe from the source, but that
will stop our automatic 'did upstream release a new version' script checks from
working

4. even though the PDF manual contains mostly unrelated windows info, it does
contain the copyright notice so you should include it in %doc too

5. while we do accept pure GPL fonts in Fedora, the GPL has problems WRT
embedding fonts in other documents (common for PDFs) so we much prefer if
upstream added the FSF font exception to its licensing
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#embedding

⇒ none of those are blockers, but it would simplify your life considerably if
you could convince upstream to publish each font in a separate versionned
archive, with no .exe inside, and with the font exception added to its
licensing

Please consider asking those changes of upstream before continuing

6. since upstream release two fonts (or more?) please consider adding a foundry
prefix to your package names

7. Please make sure you've completed all the steps (as requester and packager
of
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle up to and including 2.a)

8. This part is too much. Including the author name in the description is
sufficient:

------
Author
------

"Dr. Tirumala Krishna Desikachary" <Krishna_Desikachary at newflyer.com>

9. Please wrap your description at 79column, not 46

10. 49 is much too low a fontconfig priority level. Please respect the
numbering ranges documented on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Registering_a_font_in_default_families

11. Never process files in %install. If you need to fix up upstream txt files,
do so in %prep

12. Please do not change the fontconfig symlinking pattern documented in our
templates, you'll introduce bugs. If you've properly implemented the previous
steps it should just work. You have many examples of simple spec files in the
gfs fonts

⇒ NEEDINFO till this is being taken care of

-- 
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.