Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/fonts/openfontlibrary-smonohand-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/fonts/openfontlibrary-smonohand-fonts-20090423-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: SMonohand is a handwritten monospace Latin font with German characters. It is comparable to Microsoft's Comic Sans or Apple's Chalkboard.
This is my first font package, so please be very thorough.
The files are not available due to the fedorapeople.org crash. Could you please re-upload them?
Looks like the restore is now complete, and the files are back there. I didn't even notice the crash!
Thank you for submitting a new font package for review. I hope you'll find the process smooth and friendly, please do not hesitate to tell us what could be made better if something bugs you. Anyway, for the review 1. we use oflb as prefix for openfontlibrary fonts 2. the author claims he created this font in fontforge, so it'd be a good idea to beg for the sfd file upstream and build the font from source in the rpm 3. there is no licensing trace in the ttf file, and web pages are unfortunately not future proof. Please ask upstream to release the font in a zip file that includes a detached .txt licensing file (or at least use the fontforge button that embeds the OFL text in the .ttf) 4. IMHO this font should be classified as "fantasy" not "monospace" (see fontconfig-generics.txt in fontpackages-devel) 5. Why do you reference Droid Sans Mono in your fontconfig file? If that's because you cut and pasted from the Droid file, you have clean and documented fontconfig templates in fontpackages-devel (in /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/). The lastest rawhide version is probably the best reference for anything ≥ F11 (I'll probably push it to F11 if I stop finding things to improve every other week) 6. IMHO it is wrong to alias Chalkboard or Comic Sans MS if you're not sure Smonohand is very close both in looks and metrics. The reason being looks only are not sufficient, if the letters are different sizes documents written will one of the other fonts will end up repaginated with smonohand. Usually when we alias a font is much closer than just 'looks like it' 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font, 63-64 should be fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt) For a first try this is a nice package, you just need to spend some time reading the little documentation we have in fontpackages-devel and you'll be fine. NEEDINFO till this submission progresses
8. and I forgot: please use the font package name as .spec name
(In reply to comment #4) > Thank you for submitting a new font package for review. I hope you'll find the > process smooth and friendly, please do not hesitate to tell us what could be > made better if something bugs you. > > Anyway, for the review > > 1. we use oflb as prefix for openfontlibrary fonts Ah, thanks. That's why yum search openfont did not find anything of interest > 2. the author claims he created this font in fontforge, so it'd be a good idea > to beg for the sfd file upstream and build the font from source in the rpm I'll contact him and ask. > 3. there is no licensing trace in the ttf file, and web pages are unfortunately > not future proof. Please ask upstream to release the font in a zip file that > includes a detached .txt licensing file (or at least use the fontforge button > that embeds the OFL text in the .ttf) Ditto. > 4. IMHO this font should be classified as "fantasy" not "monospace" (see > fontconfig-generics.txt in fontpackages-devel) > > 5. Why do you reference Droid Sans Mono in your fontconfig file? If that's > because you cut and pasted from the Droid file, you have clean and documented > fontconfig templates in fontpackages-devel (in Em. Guilty as charged. I recently installed it, so when looking for a reference spec, I looked there. Somehow I skipped over the notice at the top of the packaging page. > /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/). The lastest rawhide version is probably the > best reference for anything ≥ F11 (I'll probably push it to F11 if I stop > finding things to improve every other week) I'm on Rawhide, so that's good. > 6. IMHO it is wrong to alias Chalkboard or Comic Sans MS if you're not sure > Smonohand is very close both in looks and metrics. The reason being looks only > are not sufficient, if the letters are different sizes documents written will > one of the other fonts will end up repaginated with smonohand. Usually when we > alias a font is much closer than just 'looks like it' Ah, OK. > > 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font, 63-64 should be > fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt) Where's this file? I tried looking in fontpackages{,-devel} and fontconfig{,-devel}. I was trying to go for as low a priority as possible, since it looked that 50 is for a user override, and the number goes up from there. > For a first try this is a nice package, you just need to spend some time > reading the little documentation we have in fontpackages-devel and you'll be > fine. > Will do that and reupload an updated spec later today, thanks for the feedback! Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a naming convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf
(In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #4) > > 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font, 63-64 should be > > fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt) > Where's this file? I tried looking in fontpackages{,-devel} and > fontconfig{,-devel}. /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/fontconfig-priorities.txt fontpackages-devel > Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a naming > convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf Fontconfig does not care. I'd personnally remove the dalles_-_ stuff as it's junk added by the oflb upload process, but we have no hard convention one way or another PS meld or any other interactive diff tool is your friend to convert fontpackages-devel templates in actual spec/fontconfig files
(In reply to comment #6) > > 2. the author claims he created this font in fontforge, so it'd be a good idea > > to beg for the sfd file upstream and build the font from source in the rpm > I'll contact him and ask. > > > 3. there is no licensing trace in the ttf file, and web pages are unfortunately > > not future proof. Please ask upstream to release the font in a zip file that > > includes a detached .txt licensing file (or at least use the fontforge button > > that embeds the OFL text in the .ttf) > Ditto. OFLB's web contact form is currently broken, so I'm not sure whether the message I sent actually got through or not. I'm checking on IRC to see if anyone could fix it. > > 7. 65 is probably too high a prio for a fantasy latin font, 63-64 should be > > fine (see fontconfig-priorities.txt) > Where's this file? I tried looking in fontpackages{,-devel} and > fontconfig{,-devel}. I was trying to go for as low a priority as possible, > since it looked that 50 is for a user override, and the number goes up from > there. Ignore my silliness here. I was typing fontpackage, not fontpackages, and grep swallowed the error. > Actually, one more question: the font filename (TTF) -- is there a naming > convention? right now it has the author's name -- dalles_-_SMonohand.ttf Also, presumably the suffix -fonts stays regardless of whether the package contains only one font or more.
Updated SRPM: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/fonts/oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc12.src.rpm This incorporates everything but the build-from-source/documentation issues, which is pending a response from upstream.
(In reply to comment #8) > Also, presumably the suffix -fonts stays regardless of whether the package > contains only one font or more. yes the suffix does not depend on the actual number of packaged files. That makes it safer if upstream adds a bold or italic later.
(In reply to comment #8) > OFLB's web contact form is currently broken, so I'm not sure whether the > message I sent actually got through or not. I'm checking on IRC to see if > anyone could fix it. The font metadata says the author is stefan.mueller at fgan.de Anyway: you've fixed what you could, the rest depends on upstream, so I'll approve the package now. Please continue to ping upstream, and update this package when he answers. ⳧⳧⳧ APPROVED ⳧⳧⳧ You can now continue from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#3.a I hope the process was pleasant, and that it will inspire you to package other fonts for Fedora. Please do not hesitate to suggest improvements to our organisation on the fonts mailing list. Thank you for your contribution to our font package pool. ⇒ REASSIGNING
Yup, forgot to mention(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #8) > > > OFLB's web contact form is currently broken, so I'm not sure whether the > > message I sent actually got through or not. I'm checking on IRC to see if > > anyone could fix it. > > The font metadata says the author is stefan.mueller at fgan.de Yup, forgot to mention that I did install fontforge, found the email, and emailed the author. Have not heard back from him yet. > ⳧⳧⳧ APPROVED ⳧⳧⳧ Thanks! > I hope the process was pleasant, and that it will inspire you to package > other fonts for Fedora. Please do not hesitate to suggest improvements to our > organisation on the fonts mailing list. Oh, it was. Quite a model for other SIGs -- I'd have to borrow some of your pages for the Mono and GNUstep SIGs when I get the time. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: oflb-smonohand-fonts Short Description: A handwritten monospace font Owners: salimma Branches: F-10 F-11 F-12 EL-4 EL-5 InitialCC: fonts-sig
cvs done.
oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc11
oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc10
oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update oflb-smonohand-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-10332
oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update oflb-smonohand-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-10372
oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
oflb-smonohand-fonts-20090423-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.