[Bug 533919] Review Request: mplus fonts - The M+ family of fonts designed by Coji Morishita

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Nov 28 14:57:41 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
                 CC|                            |fedora-fonts-bugs-list at redh
                   |                            |at.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?,
                   |                            |needinfo?(igshaan.mesias at gm
                   |                            |ail.com)

--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>  2009-11-28 09:57:38 EDT ---
Here is my package review. Sorry it took longer than usual, was busy hacking a
packager checker script (and given m+ is composed of 43 files, I'm so glad I
took the time to finish the script before looking at it; could not have done
the same level of review manually)

This is an awesome font set, thank you very much for packaging it!

Anyway, the review:

1. (not blocking) you don't include any fontconfig files, they would make your
user's life a lot easier (however, CJK is quite a mess in fontconfig, so maybe
it's better that way for now. Let's see what CJK users think of it)

2. (not blocking) rpmlint complains at the licensing string. I know the MPlus
license has been approved by spot, so it's not a legal problem. However I fear
all the repo-checking scripts will complain at you because of that. Please open
a fedora rpmlint bug so the license gets added to its list. (however upstream
would have made our life easier by using a standard font license such as the
OFL or the GPL with font exception)

3. (not blocking) rpmlint complains some of the lines you used in descriptions
are too long. Please break them in smaller (<80) bits

4. (blocking) same problem for at least one for your summaries

5. (not blocking) it seems rpmlint grew a spell-checker in fedora-devel. Please
fix the spelling mistakes it has identified (ie everything which is not a human

6. (blocking) please make sure your Source0 is a full URL pointing to the
source file. That will make your future packager life a lot easier (we have
many sf-hosted projects in Fedora, so it can be done)

7. (not blocking) you don't need to repeat the "Group:    User Interface/X"
line in Fedora releases with a recent rpm

8. (not blocking) it would be nice if each sub-package had a different summary.
What is the difference between 1c and 2c ?

9. (blocking) m++ipa.pe is a build script, it has nothing to do in %doc

10. (not blocking) you don't need to specify %dir %{_fontdir} in the common
subpackage, it will be added automatically to each font subpackage

11. (not blocking) it's mostly cosmetic, but it would be nice if the font files
cased the style names they declare (ie "Bold" instead of "bold"). Apps are not
always smart enough to correct this

12. (not blocking) a few font files declare an "heavy" weight. The standard
qualifier for "heavy" is "Black". That means weight selection won't work as
expected in apps not smart enough to try every possible "Black" legacy alias.
Please ask upstream to change this (also please have upstream check they did
mean "Black" and not some other weight). Standard style qualifiers and their
meaning have been described by Microsoft in the following whitepaper:

13. (not blocking) the fonts fall just short of complete coverage for several
languages and unicode blocks (we only test if a language/block needs less than
10 glyphs to be finished). Please relay upstream so it gets a chance to
complete them (for example, ab is incomplete because the Unicode consortium
added two glyphs to it this year IIRC)

14. (not blocking) it would be nice if upstream included the text of their
license in the fonts copyright field, and not just "Copyright(c) 2009 M+ FONTS
PROJECT" without licensing info

15. (not blocking) it would be nice if upstream released a source archive with
source files and build scripts, so we can re-build in Fedora using our own
fontforge version (that helps finding bugs in fontforge, and as our fontforge
improves, so do the fonts we build with it)

Please fix whatever you can and relay the requests to upstream when
appropriate. I'll attach the output of latest repo-font-audit for your package
so you have a copy of rpmlint errors, font naming warnings, and font coverage

There are a lot of requests here but your package is quite complex. Given the
number of packaged font files both you and upstream did a very good job, I've
seen much worse in packages that only included a couple font files.

NEEDINFO for now

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