[Bug 239884] Review Request: liberation-fonts - Fonts to replace commonly used Microsoft Windows Fonts

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: liberation-fonts -  Fonts to replace commonly used Microsoft Windows Fonts


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=239884





------- Additional Comments From mclasen at redhat.com  2007-05-12 18:43 EST -------
2. The license text does not seem UTF-8 encoded

This seems a bit picky, considering we are talking about a single copyright sign.

1. Please add a source URL to the package
2. Make sure the archive name and content match the signed archive on the RH page
3. For fonts tar.bz2 is probably a better idea than tar.gz

Can't really do that, since the upstream tarball is missing the License.txt
file, afaics. I'll see what I can do. gz vs bz2 is an upstream choice and 
pretty irrelevant to this review.


1. The license text is partial: it describes the exception but not the main
license. A GPL text should be joined to the package


I'll pass this on.  


 If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. NOK

The current scriptlets are copied verbatim from the guidelines.
If you are not satisfied with them, lobby for a change of the
guidelines.

- please move the clean section to its usual place after %install
- it would be nice if the metadata declaration order followed the official
Fedora template

Don't include irrelevant nitpicky details here, please. 



- please add a FAQ or at least the contact in charge of liberation fonts as the
referenced site has limited info and no contact information. In particular
everyone involved in FLOSS fonts would like to know the rationale behind GPL
choice when the painfully achieved consensus was to go OFL for all projects


Not a topic for the package review. You already brought this up
on the mailing lists, which is a much better forum than this bug.



- please drop a fontconfig configuration file in /etc/fonts/conf.d/ containing
at least the "assign generic names" bit of the dejavu-lgc one. After distussion
on IRC with behdad the right prio is probably between dejavu-lgc and other fonts
(595 unless dejavu-lgc moves to 58)


Thats possible


- relying on /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-aliases-fedora.conf means Conflicting with
fontconfig packages that do not include liberation info (major PITA). 

Why do you think so ? That does not follow at all.


Consider working with behdad to split this file in font-specific ones
(/etc/fonts/conf.d/30-001-fedora-helvetica-alias-liberation.conf,
/etc/fonts/conf.d/30-002-fedora-helvetica-alias-nimbus.conf etc) so next time a
new font package can just drop his  own file there instead of relying on a
fontconfig update


Pleaes file a separate fontconfig bug if you think you have a working scheme
that is sufficiently better than what we have now.





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