[Bug 230560] Review Request: wqy-bitmap-fonts - a fine-tuned Chinese bitmap font

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: wqy-bitmap-fonts - a fine-tuned Chinese bitmap font


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230560





------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com  2007-05-04 09:23 EST -------
(In reply to comment #40)
> * %doc should not contain INSTALL*

Agreed.  Better to remove them, since they are not really useful to users.

(In reply to comment #43)
>     IMO the binaries
> ---------------------------------------------
> %{_bindir}/mkfontdir
> %{_bindir}/fc-cache
> %{_sbindir}/chkfontdir
> ---------------------------------------------
>     should be added as Requires(post) or/and Requires(postun),
>     and all checking part "like [ -f <> ] && " should be removed.

I think at least the fontconfig requires need not be required.
See <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets> (Fonts section)
and also
<https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-April/msg00067.html>.

(In reply to comment #44)
> ok, I updated the spec/srpm one more time
> 
> Spec URL: http://wenq.org/release/08src/wqy-bitmap-fonts.spec
> SRPM URL: http://wenq.org/release/08src/wqy-bitmap-fonts-0.8.1-7a.src.rpm

I am sorry about as stated earlier using the upstream -7 in the release
can't not be done since you need to be able to bump the release number
freely if you need to rebuild at any time.  Additionally it is highly
recommended to use the "%{?dist}" suffix in the release field.
If you really have to keep the upstream -7a in the package version-release
then I recommend adding it to the release field as a minor number:
see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines for detailed
information and examples of this.

But as I said before it would be much better for upstream to move to
a simpler versioning scheme: like just "0.8.1.7". I don't know what the meaning
of the "a" in "0.8.1-7a": I hope it was not added just for the purpose
of this packaging.

> the [-f ] conditions
> were removed and added dependences in Requires(post) and Requires(postun); 

> For version numbering scheme, I used the upstream number this time, following
> Mamoru's suggestion. To accommodate the requirements in 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FrequentlyMadeMistakes
> I used a letter "a" after the release number to avoid confusions. Similarly,
> this tag is used in the changelog block. The next update will have 7b and so on.

Please see my comments above.  The package release field cannot equal
such an upstream release number.

> I saw my Fedora account still shows "unapproved" for cvsextra, I am
> wondering if there is something else I should do to get access.

Yes, please be patient.  We are getting closer to completing the review.
Also did you see comment 39: it would be good if you could try a pre-review
of a package.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.