User talk:Pfrields/DraftUpstreamRequestEmail

1. This is already way better than what we have (which is nothing).
2. When you are satisfied with the result please rename the page so its entry in the fonts packaging index looks good.
3. Do not refer to fonts as software, some authors disagree with this (even though smart font instructions are software)
   • OK, fixed. -- PWF
4. I'm not sure a font author will think of his release as a "package"
   • OK, fixed. -- PWF
5. Many authors won't have the faintest idea what Fedora is some Linux/OLPC/Red Hat references may help
   • OK, added some reference to what Fedora is, and a link to our Overview page. -- PWF
6. Very often we do not know that foo is derived from bar — that's one of the questions we want to ask authors
   • OK, added an example. -- PWF
7. It's often difficult to explain why we do not want to use pre-build hand-tuned fonts and insist on rebuilding from fontforge sources (when they are available)
   • If you could try, I'll clean up the text. -- PWF
8. It's often very difficult to explain why forgetting to version archives or font files makes packager life hard
   • If you could try, I'll clean up the text. -- PWF
9. Maybe some reference to Archive_template_for_fonts ?
   • If that's a work in progress, it may be confusing to people who aren't FOSS-aware. Should that be completed first so it's more educational for font authors who aren't FOSS-aware? -- PWF

NicolasMailhot 17:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)