https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228865
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> ---
(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #6)
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #5)
> Where is the license specified?
There never was a license file. See here, bottom of the page:
So please add a
comment to the spec file explaining this. I think you should
even
include the "license text" in that comment.
#
https://web.archive.org/web/20150625020428/http://users.teilar.gr/~g1951d/
# "in lieu of a licence:
# Fonts and documents in this site are not pieces of property or merchandise
items;
# they carry no trademark, copyright, license or other market tags; they are
free
# for any use. George Douros"
> %description seems to contain a private use unicode character
(1480
> 1561).
Thanks, there was a funny-looking zero, I fixed it in both the spec file and
the metainfo.xml file. By the way, which tool picked that up?
I does not display
properly in firefox on my system, and I started
investigating.
You probably have the right font installed.
> [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
> Note: %defattr present but not needed
But I don't have a %defattr directive, where is this coming from?
Oh, indeed.
It must be coming from one of the macros. I fixed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1047031 some time ago.
I'm not sure where this one came from. Please ignore, it's not a bug
in your package anyway.
> [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large
could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 808960 bytes in 1 files.
> That's borderline. A bit too small to create a separate package.
See comments 1 & 4 here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208842 Yeah, agreed.
> Appdata file should be validated in %check
> [
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData].
Does this apply to metainfo.xml files? I thought it was just for the
appdata.xml ones.
Yes. That paragraph talks about both kinds of files, and says
that files should
be checked with making a distinction between the two types.
> $ appstream-util validate-relax
> /usr/share/appdata/gdouros-anaktoria.metainfo.xml
> /usr/share/appdata/gdouros-anaktoria.metainfo.xml: FAILED:
> • markup-invalid : <id> does not have correct extension for kind
> • tag-missing : <extends> is not present
> Validation of files failed
On an F22 system, I'm getting this:
$ appstream-util validate-relax
rpmbuild/SOURCES/gdouros-anaktoria.metainfo.xml
rpmbuild/SOURCES/gdouros-anaktoria.metainfo.xml: OK
I can't understand why there would be a problem with the id tag or why the
extends tag would be needed, it does not extend anything.
On what system did you run fedora-review?
I run that on F21. On rawhide indeed it
doesn't say anything.
I've just noticed that fedora-review on this system creates an
F21 package
even though I fed it an F23 source rpm built in mock, is there a setting
someplace that I've missed?
Most likely you have /etc/mock/default.cfg linked
to fedora-21-x86_64.cfg.
I link it to fedora-rawhide-x86_64.cfg instead.
--
To sum up, please add:
- a comment about the license
- %check with appstream-util validate-relax
Package is APPROVED.
Are all Douros fonts packaged? If you have any left to package, I'll be happy
to review.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bfreEcdLKh&a=cc_unsubscribe