Bug 185417 - Review Request: DoulosSIL-fonts
Summary: Review Request: DoulosSIL-fonts
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Thorsten Leemhuis (ignored mailbox)
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-03-14 16:57 UTC by Michael A. Peters
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-03-14 18:40:05 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Michael A. Peters 2006-03-14 16:57:18 UTC
Spec Name or Url: http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/DoulosSIL-fonts.spec
SRPM Name or Url: http://mpeters.us/fc_extras/DoulosSIL-fonts-4.0.14.r1-1.fc4.src.rpm

Description:
The goal for this product was to provide a single Unicode-based font family
that would contain a comprehensive inventory of glyphs needed for almost any
Roman- or Cyrillic-based writing system, whether used for phonetic or
orthographic needs. In addition, there is provision for other characters and
symbols useful to linguists. This font makes use of state-of-the-art font
technologies to support complex typographic issues, such as the need to
position arbitrary combinations of base glyphs and diacritics optimally.

Doulos is very similar to Times/Times New Roman, but only has a single face -
regular. It is intended for use alongside other Times-like fonts where a range
of styles (italic, bold) are not needed.

-=-=-=-=-
NOTES

rpmlint will complain about license.
gentium-fonts is a package already in Extras with the same license
rpmlint will complain about EOL of the pdf in documentation.
There probably should be a filter for pdf files in rpmlint - the pdf views fine in evince/acroread/etc - fixing the eol (at least with sed) would break the pdf.

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2006-03-14 17:54:39 UTC
How does this package differ from the doulos-fonts package which is already in
Extras?  It looks to be the same thing.

Comment 2 Michael A. Peters 2006-03-14 18:40:05 UTC
It's not.
I must have mis-spelled it with the search.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.