Spec URL: http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/jomolhari-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/jomolhari-fonts-0.003-1.src.rpm Description: Jomolhari is an TrueType OpenType Bhutanese style font for Dzongkha and Tibetan text. It is based on Bhutanese manuscript examples, supports the Unicode and the Chinese encoding for Tibetan.
I'm also thinking to add this to description: "The font currently is in alpha stage, it include only main character combinations used for everyday text." What do you think about it? FYI: Before you post some comment I suggest you to firstly read bug #218342 Jens I thought you should be CCed :)
(In reply to comment #1) > I'm also thinking to add this to description: > "The font currently is in alpha stage, it include only main character > combinations used for everyday text." That sounds ok. From what Chris Fynn wrote to us, I might write it as "The font is still in development, but already supports the standard combinations used in everyday text."
Spec URL: http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/jomolhari-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/jomolhari-fonts-0.003-2.src.rpm - Extend description section
Perhaps I was being a little too modest... The Jomolhari font also supports all the most frequently occurring combinations used for transliterating Sanskrit and other foreign words into Tibetan. The font has already been used to typeset over 22 volumes of traditional Tibetan texts containing many mantras - and it has be tested with all the combinations occurring in a substantial Sanskrit-Tibetan dictionary. I am slowly adding several thousand more combinations - but these are infrequently occurring and for most purposes unnecessary. To get some idea of the coverage see: <http://www.btinternet.com/~c.fynn/tibetan/fonts/jomo-precomp2uni.html> - though this is not comprehensive. - Chris - Chris
Thanks, Chris. Is this any better: "Jomolhari is an TrueType OpenType Bhutanese style font for Dzongkha and Tibetan text. It is based on Bhutanese manuscript examples, supports the Unicode and the Chinese encoding for Tibetan. The font supports the standard combinations used in most texts." Do you want to improve it more? Should "combinations" be referring to Sankrit?
Marcin, perhaps the package should be named "Jomolhari-fonts", ie with a capital like the .zip file? Personally I prefer lowercase package names, but according to Packaging/NamingGuidelines the package name should follow the upstream name. Again there is the problem of the upstream version: the .zip file is versioned "alpha003" and the .ttf filename "alpha003-060520". The latest version mentioned in the font is "alpha 0.003a". Anyway in the circumstances I think your choice of "0.003" is probably the best one. I suggest shortening the Summary in the spec file to just: Summary: Bhutanese style font for Tibetan and Dzongkha should it be "Dzongkha and Tibetan"? Overall the package looks fine to me. :)
Just noticed there seems to be a newer version at <http://www.btinternet.com/~c.fynn/tibetan/fonts/download/jomolhari-alpha003c.zip>.
Jens IMHO package name only refer to name not to the case sensitivity of name, just look at Packaging/NamingGuidelines -> Case Sensitivity. As I would also prefer lowercase name so leave it as is. Can I keep the old Summary, it will be consistent with the TMU package where the font name is included in Summary? Chris and Jens, which URL are you suggesting to use: http://www.btinternet.com/~c.fynn/tibetan/fonts/jomolhari.html or http://www.thdl.org/tools/fonts/tibfonts.php?l=uva200607171100
(In reply to comment #8) > Jens IMHO package name only refer to name not to the case sensitivity of name, > just look at Packaging/NamingGuidelines -> Case Sensitivity. As I would also > prefer lowercase name so leave it as is. Ok, fine, works for me. :) > Can I keep the old Summary, it will be consistent with the TMU package where the font name is included in Summary? Well it is up to you really. Personally I don't see so much point in repeating the package name in the summary, but it is ok if you prefer to keep it. :)
(In reply to comment #8) > Chris and Jens, which URL are you suggesting to use: > http://www.btinternet.com/~c.fynn/tibetan/fonts/jomolhari.html > or > http://www.thdl.org/tools/fonts/tibfonts.php?l=uva200607171100 Chris, any comments? Probably doesn't matter too much, though Chris webpage seems more up to date. Has the license in 0.003c changed to OFL?
Either URL is OK - the THDL site currently takes a while to get updated as they are reorganizing everything. 0.003c was changed to OFL as this seems to work better for fonts. - Chris
rpmlint recognise only SIL Open Font License as valid license tag, OFL is reported as unknown. Can I leave the short form?
I think "SIL Open Font License" is fine. :) The gentium-fonts package uses that too. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#Fonts Wondering if we ought to include a helloworld shellscript or something to fulfil the requirements of bundling some software according to the FSF page. The gentium-fonts package doesn't apparently.
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#Fonts > Wondering if we ought to include a helloworld shellscript or something > to fulfil the requirements of bundling some software according to the FSF page. http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&item_id=OFL-FAQ_web (question 1.4) Nevermind, seems I was worrying too much again. :)
Spec URL: http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/jomolhari-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://manta.univ.gda.pl/~mgarski/fe/jomolhari-fonts-0.003-3.src.rpm - Update to 0.003c - Change license from GPL to OFL
Here is the review Good: + rpmlint outputs are clean + package name follows standard font package naming + spec file name follows package name + meets packaging guidelines + SIL OFL 1.0 is a recognised FOSS license + license file is included + spec file is legible and in English + md5sum matches upstream 0d03b98a7184a966815b85e7556e8bcb jomolhari-alpha003c.zip + package builds fine on fc6 i386 + no build deps + no translations + no libs + owns its directories + files list is good + clean section + consistent macro usage + package contains a free truetype font + no large documentation + no runtime %doc files + cleans buildroot before installing + package tested to work on upstream testpage Needs attention: - need to add "Requires(post)" and "Requires(postun)" for fontconfig (needed in tibetan-machine-uni-fonts too <blush/> and gentium-fonts...) Otherwise the package is fine.
I'm not sure if it's necessary to add this requirements. First in post and postun there is test for fc-cache availability before executing it "if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]", second in core and extras very few packages has this req.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: jomolhari-fonts Short Description: Jomolhari a Bhutanese style font for Tibetan and Dzongkha Owners: mgarski Branches: FC-5 FC-6 InitialCC:
(In reply to comment #18) > I'm not sure if it's necessary to add this requirements. First in post and > postun there is test for fc-cache availability before executing it "if [ -x > %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]" True. > second in core and extras very few packages has this req. Perhaps it is a "Red Hat thing": in my machine at least of the installed fonts: 20 requires fontconfig 14 do not require it (majority of those are not truetype fonts though) APPROVED :)
Imported and builded.