[Bug 476720] Review Request: beteckna-sfd-fonts - Beteckna fonts

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Mar 16 20:11:20 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
             Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)      |
               Flag|needinfo?(sanjay_ankur at yaho |
                   |o.co.in)                    |

--- Comment #13 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>  2009-03-16 16:11:17 EDT ---
I seem to have missed this update, sorry, should have looked at it way before.
This package looks a lot more sane, but it still has the following mistakes

1. you're not buildrequiring fontforge, so it won't build. Please check your
packages in mock or a koji scratch build before submitting

2. will probably need the same change as other packages to build on rawhide

3. I don't think you need to put sfd everywhere, unless the author requested it
like for old standard

4. no idea if using %{common_desc} instead of %common_desc will have bad
side-effects or not

5. you're not using the suggested fontconf form, it needs to be something like
number-%{fontname} to work. To choose the right number see

6. It's considered bad form to mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} in a single

7. be careful to put your doc in the common subpackage, not the main package

8. you can put the "beteckna" font in the main package as it's named "beteckna"
not "beteckna general". Look how the "gentium basic" package does it. The
fontconfig file probably needs to be adapted

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