Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 486680
Review Request: chisholm-banana-peels-fonts - A Decorative Serif Font
Last modified: 2011-05-26 13:36:37 EDT
Spec URL: http://jsmidt.fedorapeople.org/chisholm-banana-peels-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: http://jsmidt.fedorapeople.org/chisholm-banana-peels-fonts-20090220-1.fc10.src.rpm
Banana Peels is a decorative serif font where letters look like they are made
from banana peels.
chisholm-banana-peels-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
chisholm-banana-peels-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/61-chisholm-banana-peels.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/61-chisholm-banana-peels.conf
chisholm-banana-peels-fonts.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20090125-1 ['20090220-1.fc10', '20090220-1']
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
1. The official template evolved a little lately, please use
from fontpackages-devel ≥ 1.20 as target. Tools like meld can help you see the differences
(you can find latest fotpackages here if it has not hit a mirror next you yet
1.a replace your %define with %global
1.b. Drop this
# Do not trust font metadata versionning unless you've checked upstream does
# update versions on file changes. When in doubt use the timestamp of the most
# recent file as version.
1.c and drop this
2. The timestamp of the font file inside the zip you use as source is 20090125, please use it as version. What matters is when upstream created a file, not when you packaged it
3. The font name declared by the TTF is "Banana", that's what you need to use in your fontconfig file (OTOH a font named "Banana" with a "Peels" face/style is going to drive apps crazy, please ask upstream to rename the font to "Banana Peels" with a standard "book", "regular" or maybe "bold" face/style)
I see the bug has been inactive for quite sometime. I'd like to take over the font package. Joseph, if you do not wish to continue with this review,can you please close this bug so I can start a fresh one.