Re: fedora-review: fonts plugin

[Parag Nemade]

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>   On 2013-09-03 10:59, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
>  On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:
>
> >   On 2013-09-03 06:38, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:
> >
> >> I have added a provisionary fonts plugin to fedora-review. It's
> >> available in the devel version, see [1].
> >>
> >> f-r is now early in the 0.5.1 cycle.  To be successful, this plugin
> >> needs to be tested by people understanding fonts. I'm certainly no such a
> >> person, so I would very much appreciate any kind of feedback on this
> >> plugin. In this list, in the upstream trac instance[2] or bugzilla;
> >> anything is fine. The upstream bugtracker is preferred, though.
> >>
> >>
> > Can you generate test tarball that I can just use and install to test
> > this new change?
> >
> >  Regards,
> > Parag
> >
> >    There's instructions on how to use the development version using git
> > in [1]. This is the simplest and most used option IMHO.
> >
> > Also, you can find tarballs and rpms at [2].  Note  that the rpm's
> > version number are not upgradeable, new rpms sometimes have 'older' version
> > than the previous so you must use rpm -U --force  or similar to use them.
> > Tarballs are run the same way as the git snapshots using
> > ./try-fedora-review, see [1].
> >
> >
>    Thanks for the rpms.
>
>  1) I generally test fedora-review on existing packages as e.g.
>  $ fedora-review -rn trabajo-fonts-2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm -m
>  fedora-rawhide-x86_64
>
>   I really liked this 5.x.x releases which got more verbose and showing
>  Active plugins. I can see for above command fonts plugin is used. But I am
>  not sure why I got warning in following log.
>  INFO: Downloading (Source0):
>
> http://openfontlibrary.org/assets/downloads/trabajo/d8bc760f033341f410d8b...
>  INFO: Using local file trabajo-fonts-fontconfig.conf as Source1
>  WARNING: Package trabajo-fonts-2.0-1.fc19 not built
>  INFO: Running checks and generating report
>  INFO: Results and/or logs in:
>  /home/parag/gitvcs/trabajo-fonts/master/trabajo-fonts/results
>  INFO: Build completed
>
>   Tested with other font package and got following warning for that package
>  WARNING: Package lohit-devanagari-fonts-2.5.3-2.fc19 not built
>
>   2) I think its good to have results from repo-font-audit to be stored in
>  fonts directory and not in parent directory of fedora-review command output.
>
>
>  You mean s single directory like repo-font-audit and the results in
>  there?
>
>
>   3) both the packages I used fedora-review command, its review.txt showed
>  Rpmlint (installed packages)
>  ----------------------------
>  Cannot parse rpmlint output:
>
>
>  Requires
>  --------
>
>
>  Provides
>  --------
>
>   this looks failed to provide output.
>
>   4) for fedora-review of culmus-fonts-0.130-3.fc20.src.rpm, I got
>  following
>  ERROR: 'More than one %_font_pkg macro found' (logs in
>  /home/parag/.cache/fedora-review.log)
>
>   The macro %_font_pkg more than one is expected as this srpm creates many
>  subpackages with each subpackage needs its own %_font_pkg macro.
>
>   Regards,
>   Parag
>
>  Hi!
>
>
>  This actually revealed some internal bugs in fedora-review. I have pushed
>  some commits taking care of this, and now at least these two examples runs
>  cleanly, (besides the subdir for repo-font-audit results). Would appreciate
>  some further tests...
>
>
>  
 Thanks for the update. I can see now above reported issues are fixed
except generating a new directory for repo-font-audit command. I will
request if there are some extra files getting generated using fedora-review
as part of enabling some plugin then good to use that plugin name as a
directory and store those generated files under that directory.

Regards,
Parag.