[Bug 492900] Review Request: epigrafica-fonts - Extended and improved version of MgOpen Cosmetica font family

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Mar 30 19:43:20 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
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?,
                   |                            |needinfo?(tcallawa at redhat.c
                   |                            |om)

--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>  2009-03-30 15:43:19 EDT ---
Initial review:

1. you have some stray %defines, we're supposed to use %globals nowadays

2. I'd use the same priority as cosmetica, unless you want this font to always
come first

3. I'd use the substitution template
and add two substitution blocks, one to tell this font can be used in stead of
Optima if Optima is not present, and the other to do the same for "MgOpen
Cosmetica" (and you can probably open a bug on the mgopen package to make its
packager return the courtesy and add a rule that says Cosmetica can be used in
stead of Epigrafica)

4. %common_desc is not really useful for anything in a mono-font spec file,
though I suppose it's harmless

5. your metadata declaration order is unusual, though it'll probably only annoy
people diffing spec files

6. rpmlint warns of
epigrafica-fonts.src: W: invalid-license MgOpen
epigrafica-fonts.src: W: strange-permission convert-to-ttf.pe 0755

At least the second one can probably be dealt with easily

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