Problems detected in the gfs-didot-fonts rawhide package!

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Dear packager,

At 20091029T192211Z, while scanning the rawhide repository located at:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/static-repos/dist-rawhide-current/x86_64/
I have identified the following problems in your gfs-didot-fonts package:

SRPM             RPM              17  18  19
gfs-didot-fonts  gfs-didot-fonts  4   4   4
                 Total            4   4   4

17. Fonts with partial script coverage

    ☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to be
    accepted by fontconfig as covering one or several scripts. Therefore they
    could be made useful to more people with only a little effort.
    
    To check a font file script coverage, run fc-query with FC_DEBUG=256 and
    look for lines like: script-id¹(number) { list-of-unicode-codepoints }
    
    For example “mi(2) { 1e34 1e35 }” means fontconfig will accept the tested
    file for Maori if codepoints 1e34 and 1e35 are added.
    
    If you feel fontconfig is requiring a glyph which is not strictly necessary
    for a particular script, report the problem upstream².
    
    ¹ http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php
    ² https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=fontconfig


18. Fonts with partial unicode block coverage

    ☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
    fully cover an Unicode block. Therefore they could be made useful to more
    people with only a little effort.
    
    The Unicode consortium revises its tables regularly, and therefore a font
    may need to be extended to maintain its full coverage when a new Unicode
    revision is published¹.
    
    To check a font file unicode coverage, run the ttfcoverage command. It only
    works for modern SFNT fonts (.otf, .ttf).
    
    ¹ http://www.unicode.org/charts/


19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks

    ☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
    the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
    behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
    reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
    fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
    
    You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
    https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
    
    ¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html

Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-didot-fonts package.

I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.

Your friendly QA robot,

-- 
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: gfs-didot-fonts.tar.xz
Type: application/x-xz-compressed-tar
Size: 19516 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-bugs-list/attachments/20091029/e5a2b14f/attachment.bin>