February 2010 - i18n-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 563673] Review Request: sil-abyssinica-fonts - SIL Abyssinica fonts

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563673 --- Comment #12 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-14 22:14:38 EST --- I added fonts-sig. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 560336] [Indic] Rendering broken for some part of application

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=560336 Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mclasen(a)redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Matthias Clasen <mclasen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-14 01:53:02 EST --- This is because gdu-volume-grid.c uses cairo's toy font api to render text. It should use pango instead. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 556308] Review Request: paratype-pt-sans-fonts - A pan-Cyrillic typeface

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556308 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2010-02-13 12:41:17 EST --- Thanks a lot for the review! (esp. since I had missed a few problems) New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: paratype-pt-sans-fonts Short Description: A pan-Cyrillic typeface Owners: nim Branches: devel, F11, F12 InitialCC: fonts-sig -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 556308] Review Request: paratype-pt-sans-fonts - A pan-Cyrillic typeface

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556308 Mathieu Bridon <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-13 12:28:46 EST --- [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. $ sha1sum PTSans.zip d812b275f2b13e59a69671785b53a4eb5805c561 PTSans.zip I diffed the new spec file with the previous one, no changes but what was asked here. This package is now APPROVED. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 556308] Review Request: paratype-pt-sans-fonts - A pan-Cyrillic typeface

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556308 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2010-02-13 11:17:10 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > First, one cosmetic nitpick: > $ rpm -qivp SRPMS/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-1.fc12.src.rpm > [snip] > This package includes the four basic styles and two narrows styles for \ > economic setting. > > Could you make the backslash go away? Stupid mistake, sorry about it, fixed > +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing > > MUST Items: > [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. > $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/paratype-pt-sans-* > paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license PTFL rpmlint is not up-to-date, PTFL is on the official Fedora license list http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Approved_fon... > paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font > License_eng.txt > paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 > /usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font > License_eng.txt Missed it with all the stupid spellchecking warnings, fixed (sorry about it, I'm usually better than that) > paratype-pt-sans-fonts.src: W: macro-in-%description %_font_pkg This is a bug in rpmlint & rpmbuild > [-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, > as provided in the spec URL. > => First one is the one I got from the URL in the spec file, second one is > from the SRPM. > $ sha1sum PTSans.zip > d812b275f2b13e59a69671785b53a4eb5805c561 PTSans.zip > $ sha1sum SOURCES/PTSans.zip > f72ab3c42157ef81f7398b641213851f77e2deec SOURCES/PTSans.zip Upstream probably did the usual in-place archive update (very common for fonts), I'll use the new version. > This package is not approved as the source archives don't match. Fixed http://nim.fedorapeople.org/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-2.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 556308] Review Request: paratype-pt-sans-fonts - A pan-Cyrillic typeface

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556308 Mathieu Bridon <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #5 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-13 09:40:54 EST --- First, one cosmetic nitpick: $ rpm -qivp SRPMS/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-1.fc12.src.rpm [snip] This package includes the four basic styles and two narrows styles for \ economic setting. Could you make the backslash go away? Also, you define the « archivename » macro at the beginning of the spec but never actually use it. Can you remove it? (or use it?) Now, to the actual review. +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/paratype-pt-sans-* paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license PTFL paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font License_eng.txt paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font License_eng.txt paratype-pt-sans-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license PTFL paratype-pt-sans-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font License_eng.txt paratype-pt-sans-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font License_eng.txt paratype-pt-sans-fonts.src: W: macro-in-%description %_font_pkg paratype-pt-sans-fonts.src: W: invalid-license PTFL 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. => license is listed in the Fedora good licenses, so those 3 warnings can safely be ignored => I just opened #564585 to request that it is accepted by rpmlint => the 2 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding can safely be ignored I'd say (license text probably written under Windows) => the 2 file-not-utf8 can be ignored as well (same as above) => the macro-in-%description can be ignored as the macro is properly expanded at SRPM-build time, even with --nodeps IMHO, it would be nice to run iconv and dos2unix to remove the warnings, but those are not really important. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. => PTFL [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. => First one is the one I got from the URL in the spec file, second one is from the SRPM. $ sha1sum PTSans.zip d812b275f2b13e59a69671785b53a4eb5805c561 PTSans.zip $ sha1sum SOURCES/PTSans.zip f72ab3c42157ef81f7398b641213851f77e2deec SOURCES/PTSans.zip [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. => not applicable [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. => not applicable [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. This package is not approved as the source archives don't match. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 545824] cjkuni-uming bold face not working at 11pt

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=545824 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-13 07:01:23 EST --- openoffice.org-3.1.1-19.26.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openoffice.org-3.1.1-19.26.fc12 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 556308] Review Request: paratype-pt-sans-fonts - A pan-Cyrillic typeface

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=556308 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2010-02-13 05:50:37 EST --- Since koji garbage-collected http://nim.fedorapeople.org/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-1.fc13.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 563673] Review Request: sil-abyssinica-fonts - SIL Abyssinica fonts

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563673 --- Comment #11 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2010-02-13 04:03:06 EST --- Please always put the fonts-sig in CC when you're making a cvs request for a fonts package. Since it is not a human user, it's not easy to add later through the web interface (I'll try to ping an admin fo fix this package) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 563673] Review Request: sil-abyssinica-fonts - SIL Abyssinica fonts

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563673 Mathieu Bridon <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #10 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-13 03:16:38 EST --- Package imported into CVS and built for Rawhide. Thanks Jens for the re-review and Kevin for the CVS creation. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

i18n-bugs February 2010