Hi,
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 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>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>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.