Bug 1089002

I have corrected the SPEC.

SPEC URL: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SPECS/carterone-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: http://jenselme.perso.centrale-marseille.fr/visible/SRPMS/carterone-fonts-1.00-2.716ff965e2b0hg.fc20.src.rpm

Using sample of the #1081782, the package meets the guidelines.

Approved!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: carterone-fonts
Short Description: CarterOne fonts released by Vernon Adams
Upstream URL: http://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/source/browse/ofl/carterone
Owners: jujens
Branches: f20 f21

Git done (by process-git-requests).

carterone-fonts-1.00-2.716ff965e2b0hg.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/carterone-fonts-1.00-2.716ff965e2b0hg.fc21

carterone-fonts-1.00-2.716ff965e2b0hg.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/carterone-fonts-1.00-2.716ff965e2b0hg.fc20

This package is not following naming guidelines. Please rename this package.

Just to be sure I understood correctly:

I did not include the "google-" prefix as a foundry name because I thought that since the project is hosted on code.google.com (a general hosting service), it was not a foundry.

Instead I should have considered the project which provides a set of fonts with consistent QA and so included the "google-" prefix.

Can you confirm that my reasoning is right now?

Maybe I am wrong in my understanding but our policy says 
For Fedora purposes a “foundry” is an entity that publishes a set of fonts with consistent font QA rules.
whose meaning i took as google is also publishing fonts so we can consider it as a foundry to make sure difference from some other website which is also publishing this font.

Let me check with someone on this.

carterone-fonts-1.00-2.716ff965e2b0hg.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

I have sent email to nim-nim who initially proposed fonts packaging guidelines and we got it approved in 2009 and since then no changes happened to packaging guidelines.

I'm quite sure there are no specific requirements for using code.google.com as font hoster, so no I don't think anyone can claim it is a foundry.

OTOH, fonts commissioned by Google for its own products can certainly be considered as belonging to a foundry. Likewise fonts hosted on google font directory belong to another one (since google font directory is selective on what it accepts and tries to improve the font it hosts so they attain a certain technical standard)

With a giant like Google things are never simple

(BTW since Vernon Adams created quite a lot of fonts, I'm quite sure he could claim his own foundry)

Me also think no need to use google as a foundry name here. Only thing that google has done here is provided hosting space. Font is very clean with "Copyright (c) 2011 by vernon adams. All rights reserved."

Even i think Google will also not recommend in this case, see  "Submit a Font" https://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/

I have given my reasoning why I like to see them prefixed with "google-" as the packaged source is used from googlefontdirectory. But looks like more votes on not having "google-" as foundry for font source used from googlefontdirectory. 

I will review the other fonts then.

We need fix in fontconfig file.

1. Family name is "Carter One" not "CarterOne"
2. To me this looks serif font rather than cursive.


See /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/fontconfig-generics.txt

"1. it simulates hand-written text, it's a “cursive” font,"

Thanks for pointing that out. I have just edited my request.

carterone-fonts-1.00-3.716ff965e2b0hg.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

carterone-fonts-1.00-3.716ff965e2b0hg.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.