Someone just raised the issue on the IRC that the full URL of the source file is
not mentioned in the spec file. The reason is that the full URL is utterly ugly.
It's this:

http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/render_download.php?site_id=nrsi&format=file&media_id=Gentium_102_L_tar&filename=%2Fttf-sil-gentium_1.0.2.tar.gz

- rpmlint doesn't like the license, but their FAQ states it can be packaged.
http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
- package meets naming guidelines, somewhat like urw-fonts
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license text in %doc
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream (you may want to leave a comment about where to find
the source)
- package compiles on FC4 i386
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file

Also similar to bitstream-vera-fonts spec file.

Installed package, fonts appeared in char map and OpenOffice.org, gone upon
package removal.

Looks good to me. However, you still need a sponsor. Perhaps we can find one of
them interested interested in fonts.

I would make two recommendations -

1) ass the following:

Obsoletes: fonts-sil-gentium
Provides: fonts-sil-gentium

Reason: upstream provides an rpm with that name.

It's up to you, but if upstream provides an rpm then I think it generally best
to make sure that the Fedora rpm provides the same name.

2)

I *think* you need to change

if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then
  %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts
fi

to

if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then
  %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts/gentium
fi

I seem to remember the fonts.cache-2 file not being properly created in FC5 when
fc-cache is run on the %{_datadir}/fonts instead of the directory containing them.

3) I personally would get rid of

%define fontdir         %{_datadir}/fonts/gentium

Just use %{_datadir}/fonts/gentium

(In reply to comment #3)
> I would make two recommendations -
> 
> 1) ass the following:

I'm so sorry. That's suppose to add the following :-/

(In reply to comment #2)
> - source matches upstream (you may want to leave a comment about where to find
the source)

Done.

(In reply to comment #3)
> 1) add the following:
> 
> Obsoletes: fonts-sil-gentium
> Provides: fonts-sil-gentium

Done.

> I *think* you need to change
> 
> if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then
>   %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts
> fi
> 
> to
> 
> if [ -x %{_bindir}/fc-cache ]; then
>   %{_bindir}/fc-cache %{_datadir}/fonts/gentium
> fi

But that will fail to register the gentium directory in
%{_datadir}/fonts/fonts.cache-1, won't it?

> 3) I personally would get rid of
> 
> %define fontdir         %{_datadir}/fonts/gentium
> 
> Just use %{_datadir}/fonts/gentium

I prefer to stay with it, to minimize possible mistakes when in a later version
one mistakenly writes "genitum".

New package is posted at:
Spec Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/gentium-fonts.spec
SRPM Url: http://guava.farsiweb.info/~roozbeh/gentium-fonts-1.02-2.src.rpm

BTW, Daniel Veillard has now sponsored me for cvsextras access, so I just need
the package itself to be accepted.

I forgot to post the ChangeLog:

%changelog

* Wed Dec 21 2005 Roozbeh Porunader <roozbeh> 1.02-2
- Added comment to Source0 about where to get the file
- Added Provides and Obsoletes for upsteam RPM name

(In reply to comment #5)

> 
> But that will fail to register the gentium directory in
> %{_datadir}/fonts/fonts.cache-1, won't it?

It doesn't seem to be an issue anymore, but it doesn't specifically need to be
registered in %{_datadir}/fonts/fonts.cache-{1,2} in order for the fonts to work.

However - I just tested your package, and fc-cache on devel does in fact create
the proper file in devel branch now when used on a parent directory - so the
spec file is fine.

> 
> > 3) I personally would get rid of
> > 
> > %define fontdir         %{_datadir}/fonts/gentium
> > 
> > Just use %{_datadir}/fonts/gentium
> 
> I prefer to stay with it, to minimize possible mistakes when in a later version
> one mistakenly writes "genitum".

That's fine.
I guess it's a matter of taste.

-=-
This package is listed as assigned and in FE-Review.
But it's assigned to default gdk

Is that a mistake?
-=-

We should request a bug with rpmlint to get the license added to rpmlint since I
would like to see othe SIL fonts with that license (when released) added to
extras as well.

I'll do that later tonight.

Since I've already got an sponsor, it seems that a normal review should work.
John, would you ACCEPT?

I believe the first package must be reviewed by the person that sponsors you.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors
(Step 7).

(In reply to comment #9)
> I believe the first package must be reviewed by the person that sponsors you.
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Contributors
> (Step 7).

I've seen the page, but neither Daniel nor Seth Vidal thought that would be
necessary anymore.

APPROVED.