Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.

Bug 181994

Summary:	Review Request: doulos-fonts - Doulos SIL fonts
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Jason Tibbitts <j>
Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE	QA Contact:	Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-02-19 17:31:11 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	163779, 482993

Description Roozbeh Pournader 2006-02-18 15:58:58 UTC

Spec Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/doulos-fonts.spec
SRPM Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/doulos-fonts-4.0.14-1.src.rpm
Description:
Doulos SIL provides glyphs for a wide range of Latin and Cyrillic characters.
Doulos is very similar to Times/Times New Roman, but only has a single
regular face. It is intended for use alongside other Times-like fonts where
a range of styles (italic, bold) are not needed.

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2006-02-18 20:05:44 UTC

There's essentially no difference between this package and charis-fonts (bug
#181993), so here's a boring cut and paste.

rpmlint says:

W: doulos-fonts invalid-license SIL Open Font License
W: doulos-fonts wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/doulos-fonts-4.0.14/DoulosSIL4FontDocumentation.pdf

The license is acceptable; it's probably worth opening a bug against rpmlint to
get it added.  The second warning is just rpmlint being dumb; there's no point
in paying attention to line endings in a PDF file.

Anyway:
rpmlint output is fine.
The package meets the naming and packaging guidelines.
The specfile is properly named and follows rather exactly that of a previously
accepted package.
The source file matches upstream.
The license is appropriate and included as %doc.

Approved.

Comment 2 Roozbeh Pournader 2006-02-19 17:31:11 UTC

Thanks a lot for the review. Imported and built.