Problems detected in the bitstream-vera-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 bitstream-vera-fonts package:

SRPM                  RPM                             8   9   17  19
bitstream-vera-fonts  bitstream-vera-sans-fonts       4   4   4   4
bitstream-vera-fonts  bitstream-vera-sans-mono-fonts  4   4   4   4
bitstream-vera-fonts  bitstream-vera-serif-fonts      2   2   2   2
                      Total                           10  10  10  10

8. Exact font duplication

    ☛ Several packages duplicate font files with the same checksum. This
    needlessly wastes resources.


9. Font faces duplicated by different packages

    ☛ Face duplication wastes resources infrastructure and user side.
    
    Very often an upstream that copied some fonts will forget to keep them up
    to date, and the duplication will result in the distribution of old buggy
    data. Even when some duplicated font faces are a genuine fork with
    different features from the original, applications won't be able to select
    them reliably because of naming collision.
    
    We should always ship only one version of a font face in the repository,
    and use fontconfig or symlinks to share it accross packages.


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


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 bitstream-vera-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: bitstream-vera-fonts.tar.xz
Type: application/x-xz-compressed-tar
Size: 20032 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-bugs-list/attachments/20091029/cb020777/attachment.bin>