Packaging questions

[Paul Lange]

Am Freitag, den 30.01.2009, 19:04 +0100 schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
> Le vendredi 30 janvier 2009 à 12:09 -0300, Paul Lange a écrit :
> >  
> > OK, changed this. FontForge also says the version is 1.0 should I use
> > this or the release date like now? 
> 
> As the documentation says never use 1.0 unless your 100% sure the next
> release will be named 1.1 and not 1.0 again
> 
> > but rpmlint has 2 warning for me:
> >  
> >         yanone-tagesschrift-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
> 
> If there is really no upstream documentation there is not much you can
> do (but look at how yanone-kaffeesatz is packaged anyway)
> 
> >         yanone-tagesschrift-fonts.noarch: W: symlink-should-be-relative /etc/fonts/conf.d/64-yanone-tagesschrift.conf /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/64-yanone-tagesschrift.conf
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29#rpmlint_complains_of_absolute_symbolic_links.21        
> 
> rpmlint output is to be taken with a grain of salt, especially warnings

Hey,
thank you for your fast answer!

I created a Review request for my package. You find it here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=483363

One thing I noticed when going through the Joining the Fonts SIG
wikipage: There is written that you should apply for membership in the
cvsextras group on fas. This group does (not longer) exist.

One more question. I started looking at the next font - Vollkorn.
http://www.grafikfritze.de/?p=43

On the website there is only the *.otf file. Should I put it into an
archive for packaging?

Thank you a lot!

Paul
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/attachments/20090130/9364c3ad/attachment.sig>