Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 481409
Review Request: chisholm-to-be-continued-fonts - A stylized font
Last modified: 2009-09-24 16:00:17 EDT
SRPM URL: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/2bc-fonts-19990319-1.fc10.src.rpm SPEC URL: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/2bc-fonts.spec ToBeContinued is a pfb font providing a fun fantasy-like script. This package was on the Fonts SIG request for packaging.
I wanted to add that the page for this font has been created and is available at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/To_Be_Continued_fonts
So confusing, setting for review again.
1. As noted on IRC, the font file claims "© Alex Chisholm. All rights reserved.", while the web site claims "© Matt Chisholm, OFL" so you have a licensing discrepancy. I doubt it is acceptable as-is, please have it clarified upstream 2. The TTF version is probably better for Fedora than the Type1 version. The days of Type1 being the primary Linux font format are long past 3. Please remove comments from your spec file 4. I'd have named the package chisholm-to-be-continued-fonts, both to have a common prefix to use with other fonts on that site and to respect the name the font declares
1. Sent an email to Matt Chisholm about the legal discrepancy. 2. Packaged the ttf version for review instead of the Type1 font. 3. Spec file is clean. 4. Package has been renamed to accommodate such credit. I've uploaded two new files to represent the spec and srpm respective to the requested changes: SRPM: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/chisholm-to-be-continued-fonts-19990319-1.fc10.src.rpm SPEC: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/chisholm-to-be-continued.spec
1. you need to rename your spec too 2. your summary is too generic, add graffiti or cursive or decorative in there 3. why install -m 0643 (is this a reviewer-awake test?) 4. why fantacy in the fontconfig file (is this another test?) Apart from that, you only need confirmation in the licensing in %doc to finish the package
1. Thanks for that catch, I missed the -fonts. 2. Added Decorative to the summary 3. I honestly don't know how that happened. Fixed. 4. Again, I must have been sleepy at some point. I didn't see that change. Fixed. The new font is licensed correctly in the font itself, thus no documentation needed. Because of the license change (a new version of the font) and renaming the spec, two new files exist again. SRPM: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/chisholm-to-be-continued-fonts-20090124-1.fc10.src.rpm SPEC: http://herlo.fedorapeople.org/rpms/chisholm-to-be-continued-fonts.spec
The SPEC still includes a install -m 0643 -p %{SOURCE1} I'll approve the package, but please fix this before import in cvs. ✧✧✧ APPROVED ✧✧✧ You can now continue from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a Please do not forget the wiki and comps bits. Thank your for packaging a new font for Fedora.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: chisholm-to-be-continued-fonts Short Description: To Be Continued is a decorative/graffiti sans-serif font. Owners: herlo Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: fonts-sig
cvs done.
chisholm-to-be-continued-fonts-20090124-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
chisholm-to-be-continued-fonts-20090124-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
How is this package in the distribution when this ticket is still blocking FE-Legal?
That block should have been removed some time ago. The author changed the license to a free license.