[Bug 2048456] Review Request: fbf-mukti-fonts - Bangla open source
Opentype font
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456
Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #31 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Suggestions:
1) Good if you remove empty lines in 66-0-fbf-mukti-fonts.conf file.
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License", "*No
copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Free
Documentation License v1.2 or later". 18 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/test/2048456-fbf-mukti-
fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: 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 is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
==================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings,
0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ====================
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/mitradranirban/fbf-mukti-fonts/raw/main/SOURCES/66-0-f...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
b013f94e08a3c8c2c646182185ee42fac9f334f5e656605d2c4f8898d6aa3151
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
b013f94e08a3c8c2c646182185ee42fac9f334f5e656605d2c4f8898d6aa3151
https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti/archive/v3.0.2/fonts-mukti-...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
cd1f332e5249b1543cb874f8215218d1d81ee110cf8ae4ff8e577d2bb223198a
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
cd1f332e5249b1543cb874f8215218d1d81ee110cf8ae4ff8e577d2bb223198a
Requires
--------
fbf-mukti-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
fontpackages-filesystem
Provides
--------
fbf-mukti-fonts:
fbf-mukti-fonts
font(mukti)
font(মুক্তি)
metainfo()
metainfo(org.fedoraproject.fbf-mukti-fonts.metainfo.xml)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2048456 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: fonts, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Python, R, PHP, Java, C/C++, Perl,
Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
APPROVED this package.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456
2 years, 2 months
[Bug 2051859] Review Request: fbf-mitra-font : Experimental
Monospace Bengali Font
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051859
--- Comment #3 from Dr Anirban Mitra <mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in> ---
fbf-beng-fonts should consist of all fonts created by our volunteers in Free /
Mukta Bangla Font Project https://www.nongnu.org/freebangfont which includes
Aakash, Likhan, Jamrul. Haritaki, Ani Mitra and also Mukti ( which was, by the
way, was default Bengali font in Fedora as its earlier avatar MuktiNarrow,
before Lohit was created by RedHat). The CVS repository of the project is
currently mirrored in https://github.com/mitradranirban/freebangfont
It other developers of the group permit, I have plan to make Fedora packages of
the other fonts as well as well as upgrade them , as they are Open Source
(GPLed), in that case fbf-beng-fonts can act as a meta-package of all our fonts
including fbf-font-mukti, which was our best offering due to professional
quality glyphs. If Fedora-font-SIG allows adding members to the fbf-beng-fonts
later we can go forward on this.
I have no plan to create mitra sans or mitra serif. As indicated in the
changelog, mitra was made as a monospace font for special requirement, I later
changed the name to mitramono to avoid confusion with a non-free nastaliq font
by Monotype corporation of the same name.
Now you suggest what is the way to go forward.
Presently Debian ships Mukti, Ani, MitraMono, Likhan and Jamrul font as their
package fonts-beng-extra. However after exclusion of MuktiNarrow from Fedora
due to absence of Font exception issue in 2005, none of the Free-Bangla_font
products are in Fedora.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051859
2 years, 2 months
[Bug 2051859] Review Request: fbf-mitra-font : Experimental
Monospace Bengali Font
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051859
--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> ---
As this package's upstream hosting is not simpler and clear, it becomes
difficult to decide font package naming.
I thought more on this and consulted someone also in our team.
Do you have plan to develop and provide Mitra Sans and Mitra Serif in future?
if yes then we should name fbf-mitra-mono-fonts, if not then just name it
fbf-mitra-fonts.
There is another thought now
try to create fbf-fonts srpm and generate fbf-ani-fonts and
fbf-mitra-mono-fonts.
if that kind of packaging is not possible then you can think to host those
fonts differently and then have these 2 submissions.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051859
2 years, 2 months