[Bug 475593] Review Request: fontpackages - Common directory and macro definitions used by font packages
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Dec 10 04:08:38 UTC 2008
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=475593
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri at yahoo.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |orcanbahri at yahoo.com
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |orcanbahri at yahoo.com
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri at yahoo.com> 2008-12-09 23:08:36 EDT ---
Thanks for this package. The font packaging guidelines always seemed like a
maze to me. I hope this will make things a lot easier. I have a few comments
and questions:
* rpmlint says:
fontpackages-devel.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided rpm-fonts-devel
fontpackages-filesystem.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided
rpm-fonts-filesystem
Is there a particular reason why you don't provide the obsoletes? I also can't
seem to find these packages in our db. Do we really need these obsoletes?
fontpackages-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation
This can be ignored.
* The license tag should be: LGPLv3+
* We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)
* Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The directories:
/usr/share/fonts.
/etc/fonts/conf.d
are already owned by filesystem and fontconfig. Why share the ownership?
- Suggestion: Since you are the upstream, you can provide a Makefile in the
source so that you don't have to do those tricks in the SPEC file.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list