fonts-bugs June 2022

fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org

2 participants
57 discussions

[Bug 2081539] Review Request: vazirmatn-fonts - A simple and legible Persian/Arabic typeface
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 04 Jun '22

04 Jun '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539 Hedayat Vatankhah <hedayatv(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-06-04 11:00:12 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

1 0

[Bug 2081539] Review Request: vazirmatn-fonts - A simple and legible Persian/Arabic typeface
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Jun '22

03 Jun '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539 --- Comment #19 from Gwyn Ciesla <gwync(a)protonmail.com> --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vazirmatn-fonts -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

1 0

[Bug 2081539] Review Request: vazirmatn-fonts - A simple and legible Persian/Arabic typeface
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Jun '22

03 Jun '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539 --- Comment #18 from Hedayat Vatankhah <hedayatv(a)gmail.com> --- > Looks like both upstream fedora-rpm-macros and corresponding package in Fedora. Oops, "Looks like both upstream fedora-rpm-macros and the corresponding package in Fedora need some love". -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

1 0

[Bug 2081539] Review Request: vazirmatn-fonts - A simple and legible Persian/Arabic typeface
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Jun '22

03 Jun '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539 --- Comment #17 from Hedayat Vatankhah <hedayatv(a)gmail.com> --- Thanks a lot for doing the review. However, about this: >> This meta-package installs all the font packages, generated from the >Please drop the comma. This is not mine, it comes from font rpm macros: https://pagure.io/fonts-rpm-macros/blob/main/f/rpm/lua/srpm/fonts.lua#_164 (Surprisingly, the string differs a little. The string has been change about 2 years ago in this[1] commit, but it has not hit Fedora repos yet.). Looks like both upstream fedora-rpm-macros and corresponding package in Fedora. [1] https://pagure.io/fonts-rpm-macros/c/a60b1d2c0216808e67f7d597583cc7407fa83c… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

1 0

[Bug 2081539] Review Request: vazirmatn-fonts - A simple and legible Persian/Arabic typeface
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Jun '22

03 Jun '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> --- > This meta-package installs all the font packages, generated from the Please drop the comma. ===== 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. OFL [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", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1". 316 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/2081539-vazirmatn- fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [-]: 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 614400 bytes in 36 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]: 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). [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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. rpmlint: checks: 32, packages: 14 vazirmatn-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation Package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

1 0

[Bug 2081539] Review Request: vazirmatn-fonts - A simple and legible Persian/Arabic typeface
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 02 Jun '22

02 Jun '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539 --- Comment #15 from Hedayat Vatankhah <hedayatv(a)gmail.com> --- Updated package: SPEC: https://hedayat.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vazirmatn-fonts.spec SRPM: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1921/87811921/vazirmatn-font… Koji Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=87811920 I decided to not use rpmautospec, since it seems to be that using it outside Fedora scm doesn't make much sense. I'm OK with moving to use it after the package is accepted in the repos, putting all changelog entries up to the time into the changelog file and using rpmautospec with appropriate starting release number. I fixed the package descriptions. I should note that using '\' after expand doesn't work; so I moved %{common_description} right after the expand macro. I'll probably create a PR for Fedora font templates to fix this bug in them. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2081539

1 0

[Bug 2051879] Review Request: fbf-ani-fonts - Script like Bengali Font
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 02 Jun '22

02 Jun '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879 --- Comment #10 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> --- From https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing license "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later, with font embedding exception" denoted by "GPLv3+ with exceptions" seems to be ok, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs June 2022