|Summary:||Review Request: epigrafica-fonts - Extended and improved version of MgOpen Cosmetica font family|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot>|
|Status:||CLOSED DUPLICATE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||fedora-package-review, fonts-bugs, notting, paskalis|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2009-03-31 13:25:19 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-30 15:59:28 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/epigrafica-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/epigrafica-fonts-1.01-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: The Epigrafica family of fonts is an extended and improved version of the MgOpen Cosmetica font family. It is based on the Optima designs by Hermann Zapf.
Comment 1 Nicolas Mailhot 2009-03-30 19:43:19 UTC
Initial review: 1. you have some stray %defines, we're supposed to use %globals nowadays 2. I'd use the same priority as cosmetica, unless you want this font to always come first 3. I'd use the substitution template /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/substitution-font-template.conf and add two substitution blocks, one to tell this font can be used in stead of Optima if Optima is not present, and the other to do the same for "MgOpen Cosmetica" (and you can probably open a bug on the mgopen package to make its packager return the courtesy and add a rule that says Cosmetica can be used in stead of Epigrafica) 4. %common_desc is not really useful for anything in a mono-font spec file, though I suppose it's harmless 5. your metadata declaration order is unusual, though it'll probably only annoy people diffing spec files 6. rpmlint warns of epigrafica-fonts.src: W: invalid-license MgOpen epigrafica-fonts.src: W: strange-permission convert-to-ttf.pe 0755 At least the second one can probably be dealt with easily
Comment 2 Sarantis Paskalis 2009-03-31 12:39:40 UTC
There is another submission of the same font package in bug #484057 (which seems stale for about a month and a half). Don't know whether the original submitter abandoned it.