[Bug 486977] Review Request: gnu-free-fonts

[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=486977


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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh
                   |                            |at.com
         Depends on|                            |212079
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?,
                   |                            |needinfo?(limb at jcomserv.net
                   |                            |)




--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>  2009-03-02 17:18:04 EDT ---
Thank you very much for working on this. Here is a first review pass:

1. FPC and FESCO have decided %global was preferred over %define. The changes
are in fontpackages 1.20, please apply them
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define

2. Please try to keep the same declaration order as the templates, that makes
diffing & reviewing easier

3. Please do not make a metapackage of the main package, if you need a
metapackage for upgrade paths create a -compat subpackage that we'll be able to
kill at F12 time

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_packages#Can.27t_I_use_my_old_package_name_instead_of_a_-compat_subpackage.3F

vera, mgopen, dejavu, liberation, etc all use this proven pattern

4. you can probably drop the
Obsoletes: freefont-ttf < %{version}-%{release}
freefont has been named freefont in Fedora for quite a long time

5. In rawhide you can drop the
Group:    User Interface/X
declarations in subpackages

6. use the
%package -n %{fontname}-<FAMILY>-fonts
%description -n %{fontname}-<FAMILY>-fonts
%_font_pkg -n <FAMILY> -f %{fontconf}-<FAMILY>.conf <NAME>*.ttf

which is documented in the templates if you want stuff to actually work

7. put doc in the common package, that's one of its main uses

8. BuildRequire fontforge

9. You'll likely hit
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/2009-February/msg00076.html
too

10. Please add fontconfig rules to each font subpackages. In your case that's
probably just taking the
/usr/share/fontconfig/templates/basic-font-template.conf
template and filling in font names

11. Please also make sure you've not forgotten a step in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splitting_packages#Source_package_naming_changes

That's all I see right now, I may have missed something else, multi-font
packages can be trickier than mono-font ones. But first fix this please

-- 
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.