Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://smallvil.fedorapeople.org/rpm/alee-fonts/alee-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://smallvil.fedorapeople.org/rpm/alee-fonts/srpm/alee-fonts-12-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Alee family of Korean TrueType fonts
Please follow the process described on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle and in particular make sure you have a page describing your font on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:In-progress_fonts by the time you post your review request. Thanks
Also please split the package in individual font families. I guess you have a good example in un-extra-fonts now. And you need to ask spot to add the Artistic License 2 to the list of approved Fedora font licenses, though I don't think this will be any problem
Setting needinfo till the requested changes are done. Please remove the flag when the next version of the spec is ready
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
Its almost 8 months and no reply from submitter, I will close this review now. Anyone interested please submit new package review. Smallvil, If you are still following this review and want to package this, submit updated package.