Bug 462711
| Summary: | Review Request: Mothanna-fonts - Mothanna-fonts from Arabeyes.org | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Subhodip Biswas <440volt.tux> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, fonts-bugs, i18n-bugs, notting, petersen, pnemade |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-06-02 05:27:32 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 461139 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 462625 | ||
|
Description
Subhodip Biswas
2008-09-18 14:22:05 UTC
Made this depend on Thabit-fonts review (bug 461139) since the packaging is very similar: so I suggest best to finish that review first to avoid duplicate review work. Needinfo till a package that conforms to the points listed in bug #461139 is made available Ping? [This is a simplified version of the message sent to every package maintainer that ships TTF/OTF/Type1 fonts in Fedora.] Our font packaging guidelines have now changed. New font package submissions must now be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package: – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_(2008-12-21) has been submitted for FPC and FESCO approval today. The new templates should make the creation of font packages easy and safe. The following packages have already been converted by their packager in fedora-devel and can serve as examples: ❄ abyssinica-fonts ❄ andika-fonts ❄ apanov-heuristica-fonts ❄ bitstream-vera-fonts ❄ charis-fonts ❄ dejavu-fonts ❄ ecolier-court-fonts ❄ edrip-fonts ❄ gfs-ambrosia-fonts ❄ gfs-artemisia-fonts ❄ gfs-baskerville-fonts ❄ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts ❄ gfs-bodoni-fonts ❄ gfs-complutum-fonts ❄ gfs-didot-classic-fonts ❄ gfs-didot-fonts ❄ gfs-eustace-fonts ❄ gfs-fleischman-fonts ❄ gfs-garaldus-fonts ❄ gfs-gazis-fonts ❄ gfs-jackson-fonts ❄ gfs-neohellenic-fonts ❄ gfs-nicefore-fonts ❄ gfs-olga-fonts ❄ gfs-porson-fonts ❄ gfs-solomos-fonts ❄ gfs-theokritos-fonts ❄ nafees-web-naskh-fonts ❄ stix-fonts ❄ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts The new spec templates have been designed to be easy to update to from the previous guidelines, and to remove complexity from font packages. To help new package creation the fontpackages-devel package has been made available in Fedora 9 and 10. If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com What is the status of this? (In reply to comment #5) > What is the status of this? The original submitter needs to take care of the review feedback, or someone else needs to submit a competing review request Hello Subhodip, What is the status of the updates required to this package for the review? It would be great to get this into Fedora 11. Its almost 7 months and no reply from submitter, I will close this review now. Anyone interested please submit new package review. Subodh, If you are still following this review and want to package this, submit updated package. |