Bug 445279
| Summary: | Review Request: brettfont-fonts - A handwriting font | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jon Stanley <jonstanley> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, fonts-bugs, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | nicolas.mailhot:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-06-22 19:50:58 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Jon Stanley
2008-05-05 21:30:18 UTC
could you please recheck the URL of the spec? I get 404 - Page could not be found Oops, sorry about that, it helps to put them in the public_html directory :) Same spec, new SRPM - http://jstanley.fedoraproject.org/brettfont-fonts-1.0-2.fc8.src.rpm Changed the %description to reflect the package rather than upstream's whimsical story :) Only looked at the spec since the SRPM is not reachable.
Anyway:
1. Spec is a textbook copy of the official template → OK
2. Source is correctly licensed and from a trusty provider → OK
Approved
Some optional comments
1. you do not need the cp in %prep. Just use %{SOURCE0} in %install directly
(and save a few electrons)
2. for releases ≥ F9 you can drop the -f in fc-cache
3. Upstream TTF file name is fugly. Fontconfig will work the same no matter what
of course but you should consider changing it to something better in the install
ttf line
4. it's somewhat dangerous to use 1.0 as version for upstreams with lax release
discipline. They sometimes update the file in-place later without changing the
TTF metadata version (1.0 is the default for the version field in many tools,
thus unfortunately it does not always mean the author really decided this was
release 1.0). For this reason I've used timestamps as versions in the gfs font
packages
5. bonus points if you can get upstream to release its font in a nice versioned
archive with detached license text.
When you're done please do not forget moving it to the "packaged" part of the fonts pipeline, and also referencing (as optional) in the @fonts comps group Yeah, I thought I changed the name to something more palatable in the %prep, which I will change to %install per your suggestion. Should I just use today as the version, or is there some way to tell from the TTF metadata (or just use the date it was posted upstream?). Look for a new version and CVS checkin tonight. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: brettfont-fonts Short Description: A handwriting font Owners: jstanley Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. brettfont-fonts-20080506-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9 brettfont-fonts-20080506-1.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8 brettfont-fonts-20080506-1.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update brettfont-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-3468 |