July 2008 - fonts-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel .cvsignore, 1.49, 1.50 dejavu-fonts.spec, 1.84, 1.85 import.log, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.49, 1.50

by nim

Author: nim Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel In directory cvs-int.fedora.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv29147/devel Modified Files: .cvsignore dejavu-fonts.spec import.log sources Log Message: Summertime release… Dedicated to the letter Ben Բ Index: .cvsignore =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel/.cvsignore,v retrieving revision 1.49 retrieving revision 1.50 diff -u -r1.49 -r1.50 --- .cvsignore 19 May 2008 20:50:26 -0000 1.49 +++ .cvsignore 27 Jul 2008 13:35:50 -0000 1.50 @@ -1 +1 @@ -dejavu-fonts-2.25.tar.bz2 +dejavu-fonts-2.26.tar.bz2 Index: dejavu-fonts.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel/dejavu-fonts.spec,v retrieving revision 1.84 retrieving revision 1.85 diff -u -r1.84 -r1.85 --- dejavu-fonts.spec 16 Jul 2008 16:51:56 -0000 1.84 +++ dejavu-fonts.spec 27 Jul 2008 13:35:50 -0000 1.85 @@ -15,8 +15,8 @@ %define UnicodeData %(eval "$(%{__perl} -V:privlibexp)"; echo $privlibexp)/unicore/UnicodeData.txt Name: %{fontname}-fonts -Version: 2.25 -Release: 4%{?alphatag}%{?dist} +Version: 2.26 +Release: 1%{?alphatag}%{?dist} Summary: DejaVu fonts, mature typefaces Group: User Interface/X @@ -176,10 +176,16 @@ %changelog -* Wed Jul 16 2008 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> - 2.25-4 +* Sun Jul 26 2008 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> +- 2.26-1 +Բ New release at last + +* Wed Jul 16 2008 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> +- 2.25-4 - note Public Domain contributions -* Wed Jul 16 2008 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> - 2.25-3 +* Wed Jul 16 2008 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> +- 2.25-3 - fix license tag * Fri Jul 11 2008 <nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net> Index: import.log =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel/import.log,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- import.log 11 Jul 2008 19:59:30 -0000 1.1 +++ import.log 27 Jul 2008 13:35:50 -0000 1.2 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ dejavu-fonts-2_25-2_fc10:HEAD:dejavu-fonts-2.25-2.fc10.src.rpm:1215806350 +dejavu-fonts-2_26-1_fc10:HEAD:dejavu-fonts-2.26-1.fc10.src.rpm:1217165726 Index: sources =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/extras/rpms/dejavu-fonts/devel/sources,v retrieving revision 1.49 retrieving revision 1.50 diff -u -r1.49 -r1.50 --- sources 19 May 2008 20:50:26 -0000 1.49 +++ sources 27 Jul 2008 13:35:50 -0000 1.50 @@ -1 +1 @@ -d1aadb2a9dbf7d815f99c10efeb28e4a dejavu-fonts-2.25.tar.bz2 +26bae23fdfaba1020a88bcbf147ccd79 dejavu-fonts-2.26.tar.bz2

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 456527] Review Request: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527 panemade(a)gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mvaliyav(a)redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From panemade(a)gmail.com 2008-07-27 08:05 EST ------- *** Bug 456799 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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.

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 ------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net 2008-07-27 06:05 EST ------- (In reply to comment #5) > I am not a sponsor, so cannot officially review the package since your sponsor > must do that, so here is a "pre-review" which will hopefully save a sponsor some > time. I don't think there is any requirement for the sponsor to be the one who reviews the first package. You can check a new contributor behaviour with third-party reviews too. As for the sponsorship bit, should the TEX community wish to be more involved in Fedora, and package more TEX-related stuff, I'm sure something could be arranged (additional work alert!) -- 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.

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 ------- Additional Comments From jonathan.underwood(a)gmail.com 2008-07-26 13:14 EST ------- One other thing, Source0 should contain a full URL to the zip archive: ftp://cam.ctan.org/tex-archive/fonts/utilities/fontools.zip -- 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.

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Issue 43029] support PS-OpenType/OTF/(SFNT with CFF) fonts for PDF export and printing

by chrullrich＠openoffice.org

To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=43029 User chrullrich changed the following: What |Old value |New value ================================================================================ CC|'bahein,benjamin_schallar,|'bahein,benjamin_schallar, |bernd_schoeler,ckolivas,cw|bernd_schoeler,chrullrich, |oollard,fedorafonts,iorsh,|ckolivas,cwoollard,fedoraf |jeongkyu,masayan,msundman,|onts,iorsh,jeongkyu,masaya |simos' |n,msundman,simos' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 ------- Additional Comments From jonathan.underwood(a)gmail.com 2008-07-26 13:07 EST ------- OK. when you submit lcdf-typetools for review, please add the bugzilla number to the "depends on" box of this bug. -- 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.

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 ------- Additional Comments From gaburici(a)cs.umd.edu 2008-07-26 13:00 EST ------- Oops. The lcdf-typetools I have on my box are indeed from a different repo. So, first I have to package those for Fedora. I'll come back to this package once that's done. -- 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.

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 ------- Additional Comments From jonathan.underwood(a)gmail.com 2008-07-26 12:58 EST ------- lcdf-typetools was in the Fedora Extras repo up until before FC6, so can be resurrected from CVS. -- 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.

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 ------- Additional Comments From jonathan.underwood(a)gmail.com 2008-07-26 12:44 EST ------- A major problem: lcdf-typetools is not available in the Fedora repositories, so until that is packaged, this is somewhat blocked. Nonetheless, see below. I am not a sponsor, so cannot officially review the package since your sponsor must do that, so here is a "pre-review" which will hopefully save a sponsor some time. Legend: GOOD: + BAD: - Not Applicable: N/A Still in Progress or questinable: ? - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. See Above + MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines . ? MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . The Requires for texlive-latex should be replaced with Requires: tex(latex) For consistency %buildroot should be %{buildroot} throughout. Similarly with %_mandir/%{_mandir} The preferred value for BuildRoot is %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) but the one that is currently used is the second best, so not a blocker. I notice that the Perl module dependencies are correctly detected by rpm, so no need for explicit perl module dependencies. + MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. See rpmlint output + MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. + MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. + MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). + MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. upstream: 4c879bc479d48965a99abfaebd1b9101 fontools.zip package: 4c879bc479d48965a99abfaebd1b9101 fontools-20070807.zip + MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. N/A MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. - MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines] ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. BuildRequires: texlive-texmf is really desireable, as this will define %{_texmf_main}, which you should use instead of%{_texmf}, I think. Currently the BuildRequires: /usr/binkpsewich actually does pull this in, but I think it should be an explicit package dependency. Related to that, I wonder about this macro at the top: %{!?_texmf: %define _texmf %(eval "echo `kpsewhich -expand-var '$TEXMFMAIN'`")} would it not be preferable to have the following? %{!?_texmf_main: %define _texmf_main %{_datadir}/texmf} This is up for debate, and we really need to get some tex packaging guidelines sorted out. + MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. N/A MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. N/A MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. + MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples. + MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. + MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. + MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ([wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT] ). - MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#macros macros section of Packaging Guidelines] . See above about use of {} in macros. + MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the [wiki:Self:Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines] . N/A MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity) + MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. N/A MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. N/A MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} N/A MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. N/A MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. T + MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: + SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Note: it would be nice if a COPYING file was included. N/A SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. + SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See [wiki:Self:PackageMaintainers/MockTricks MockTricks] for details on how to do this. + SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. - SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Currently can't be installed since lcdf-typetools is not in repos. N/A SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. N/A SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. + SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines for further information. -- 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.

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 ------- Additional Comments From jonathan.underwood(a)gmail.com 2008-07-26 10:45 EST ------- Builds cleanly in mock. rpmlint output: tex-fontools.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL tex-fontools.src: W: invalid-license GPL 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. The package contains a copy of the GPL v2 license, but not COPYING file. However, according to the docs it is licensed under GPLv2 (and not GPLv2+), so I think the license tag should be GPLv2. -- 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.

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs July 2008