Bug 492900 - Review Request: epigrafica-fonts - Extended and improved version of MgOpen Cosmetica font family
Summary: Review Request: epigrafica-fonts - Extended and improved version of MgOpen Co...
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 484057
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nicolas Mailhot
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2009-03-30 15:59 UTC by Tom "spot" Callaway
Modified: 2009-09-24 19:43 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2009-03-31 13:25:19 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-30 15:59:28 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/epigrafica-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/epigrafica-fonts-1.01-1.fc11.src.rpm
The Epigrafica family of fonts is an extended and improved version of the 
MgOpen Cosmetica font family. It is based on the Optima designs by Hermann 

Comment 1 Nicolas Mailhot 2009-03-30 19:43:19 UTC
Initial review:

1. you have some stray %defines, we're supposed to use %globals nowadays

2. I'd use the same priority as cosmetica, unless you want this font to always come first

3. I'd use the substitution template
and add two substitution blocks, one to tell this font can be used in stead of Optima if Optima is not present, and the other to do the same for "MgOpen Cosmetica" (and you can probably open a bug on the mgopen package to make its packager return the courtesy and add a rule that says Cosmetica can be used in stead of Epigrafica)

4. %common_desc is not really useful for anything in a mono-font spec file, though I suppose it's harmless

5. your metadata declaration order is unusual, though it'll probably only annoy people diffing spec files

6. rpmlint warns of
epigrafica-fonts.src: W: invalid-license MgOpen
epigrafica-fonts.src: W: strange-permission convert-to-ttf.pe 0755

At least the second one can probably be dealt with easily

Comment 2 Sarantis Paskalis 2009-03-31 12:39:40 UTC
There is another submission of the same font package in bug #484057 (which seems stale for about a month and a half).  Don't know whether the original submitter abandoned it.

Comment 3 Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-03-31 13:25:19 UTC
Closing this out as a dupe.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 484057 ***

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