[Bug 454148] Review Request: monafont - Japanese font for text arts
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Jul 6 12:15:37 UTC 2008
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: monafont - Japanese font for text arts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454148
------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-07-06 08:15 EST -------
Thank you for initial comments:
For 1:
I did not know the wiki package, however as far as I check the wiki pacakage
it seems fine.
For 2:
Perhaps I've read them
For 3:
3-1: Some fedora contributor says that unless umask is set correctly fc-cache
creates
font cache in a wrong permission: ref:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2007-March/msg00151.html
For example, fonts-japanese package has umask scriptlet.
I don't know if this issue has been correctly fixed. If you are sure this
is not needed now please let me know it.
3-2: %defattr(0644,-,-,0755) = %defattr(-,root,root,-) and actually I don't think
fonts packages must write a explicit umask values which differs from gerenal
packaging guidelines. Are there any rationale?
5-AB: Will fix
5-C: Very intentional. Actually I don't want to have this rpm _automatically_ find
the version.
i.e. If the dependent fonts make update version, then this srpm won't build and
someone (or Matt using automated massbuild) complains to me
"your srpm won't build, please fix it", which is actually what I am
intended.
6. Calling mkfontdir on scriptlet pulls X dependent packages, which is _banned_
on current Fedora packaging: related to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureNoMoreXFS
Actually one day (before the release of F-8) all packages including core
fonts are
made to not call mkfontdir or chkfontpath on scriptlet.
--
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, or are watching someone who is.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list