[Bug 530880] Review Request: ns-tiza-fonts - A Slab-Serif Font

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530880


Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>  2009-11-03 15:12:57 EDT ---
Hi Edward,

1. You seem to have based your packaging on an old (pre-fedora-11) template.
Please rebase on the fonts template found in fontpackages-devel. It will
considerably simplify your packaging and do more things such as generating rpm
metadata for the font auto-installer

2. description:
inspired on ⇒ inspired by ?
accent marks ⇒ diacritics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic
ASCII ⇒ basic latin http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0000.pdf

3. summary: you need to find a short statement that describes the font without
using its name (the font name is already included in the package name, and
every package manager will display the package name next to the summary)

4. repo-font-audit notes your rpm is not including font metadata (due to the
previously mentioned bad template choice) and that the font could be easily
extended to cover more scripts (to relay upstream)

af(1) { 0149 }
az-az(8) { 011e 011f 0130 0131 015e 015f 018f 0259 }
bin(6) { 0300 0301 1eb8 1eb9 1ecc 1ecd }
bm(8) { 014a 014b 0186 0190 019d 0254 025b 0272 }
ca(2) { 013f 0140 }
co(5) { 00c6 00e6 0152 0153 0178 }
crh(6) { 011e 011f 0130 0131 015e 015f }
csb(8) { 0104 0105 0141 0142 0143 0144 017b 017c }
da(2) { 00c6 00e6 }
de(1) { 00df }
et(4) { 0160 0161 017d 017e }
fi(4) { 0160 0161 017d 017e }
fo(3) { 00c6 00e6 00f0 }
fr(5) { 00c6 00e6 0152 0153 0178 }
fy(1) { 00df }
gn(4) { 0129 0169 1ebd 1ef9 }
ha(8) { 0181 018a 0198 0199 01b3 01b4 0253 0257 }
hu(4) { 0150 0151 0170 0171 }
hz(5) { 032f 1e12 1e13 1e4a 1e4b }
ig(6) { 1eca 1ecb 1ecc 1ecd 1ee4 1ee5 }
is(5) { 00c6 00de 00e6 00f0 00fe }
ki(4) { 0128 0129 0168 0169 }
kl(7) { 00c6 00e6 0128 0129 0138 0168 0169 }
kr(4) { 018e 01dd 024c 024d }
ku-tr(2) { 015e 015f } 
lb(1) { 00df }
lg(2) { 014a 014b }
ln(9) { 011a 011b 0186 0190 0254 025b 0301 0302 030c }
mt(8) { 010a 010b 0120 0121 0126 0127 017b 017c }
na(2) { 0168 0169 }
nb(2) { 00c6 00e6 }
nds(1) { 00df }
nn(2) { 00c6 00e6 }
no(2) { 00c6 00e6 }
nso(2) { 0160 0161 }
ny(2) { 0174 0175 }
qu(1) { 02c8 }
ro(6) { 0102 0103 0218 0219 021a 021b }
sco(4) { 01b7 021c 021d 0292 }
shs(1) { 0313 }
sm(1) { 02bb }tig(221) 
tk(6) { 0147 0148 015e 015f 017d 017e }
tn(2) { 0160 0161 }
to(1) { 02bb }
tr(6) { 011e 011f 0130 0131 015e 015f }vi(110) vo(0) 
vot(4) { 0160 0161 017d 017e }
wo(2) { 014a 014b }


5. the OFL license joined to the file claims the author reserves the name as
"Tiza Chalk", but the name the font declares is just "Tiza", so maybe upstream
did a mistake here. It's very unusual to reserve a name different from the name
the font declares. If upstream decides the font is Tiza Chalk after all you'll
have to rename the package which is much easier to do before inclusion in
Fedora (also need to update the fontconfig rules, but this part is easy)

6. Please ask upstream to update the licensing info in the font file next time
they update it (the font file still claims its licensing is CC-By, not OFL)

7. It would probably also be a good idea to check fontlint, though its messages
are clear as mud as usual

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.