[Bug 652803] Review Request: arkandis-gillius-fonts - Gillius ADF sans-serif typeface family

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Nov 15 14:40:02 UTC 2010

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


--- Comment #5 from Michael J Gruber <mjg at fedoraproject.org> 2010-11-15 09:40:02 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Retain time stamp with
>  cp -p cp %{SOURCE1} .
> rpmlint output:
> arkandis-gillius-fonts.src:35: W: setup-not-quiet
> arkandis-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
> arkandis-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
> arkandis-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
> arkandis-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section
> arkandis-gillius-fonts.src:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9,
> tab: line 17)
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
> Add "-q" to %setup and check your tabs vs spaces.
> If you want, you can silence rpmlint by adding the cleanings and the buildroot
> tag. However, this is not necessary (unless you want to build for EPEL4 or 5).

All of these came from the abattis-cantarell spec. I'll retabify etc.

> ** 
> To my understanding this package contains two font families: GilliusADF and
> GilliusADFNo2. The Font packaging guidelines at
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy
> require you to make two subpackages in this case: one for GilliusADF and one
> for GilliusADFNo2. See the file 
>  /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec
> in fontpackages-devel for an example.

Well, they are 2 variants of the same family. Should I still produce 2
packages?  Rereading the policy "in strict mode" leads to "probably yes"...
[First time reading it seemed silly to have a -common package for 3 doc files.]
I'll do.

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