https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456
Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |panemade(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> ---
Review of your package submission.
1) Your package SPEC file name and SRPM name should be matching.
Your SRPM name is fbf-mukti-fonts which is correct but SPEC file is
fonts-mukti so fix this
2) I see un-necessary global definition of fontfamily
%global fontfamily mukti
you already defined this as fontfamily0
3) Font license should be from Fedora approved license list
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
You wrote "GPl3+FontException" which is not correct.
Correct way to write license tag is "GPLv3+ with exceptions"
4) For single font family packaging you can drop "0" suffix from
fontfamily0, fontsummary0, fonts0, fontconfs0, fontdescription0 variables
5) You don't need to pass any argument to macro %fontpkg
6) I have not seen anyone using %sourcelist for any font packaging so drop it
7) I don't know why you added below line in your spec file. I don't think its
needed.
%foundry-%fontfamily-fonts-%version.tar.gz
8) You can take an example of how already some font has been packaged. Let's
take madan-fonts as an example.
See
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/madan-fonts/
9) Your each %changelog entry should add "-<release>"
so your last entry should have been
* Fri Jan 28 2022 21:42:16 +0530 Dr Anirban Mitra
<mitra_anirban(a)yahoo.co.in> - 3.0.1-1
Fix the above issues and update Release: to 2 and add relevant new changelog
entry.
During review whenever you fix your SPEC file, you should update release tag
and add changelog entry and provide updated SPEC and SRPM links again.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048456