i18n-bugs December 2013

i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
350 discussions

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Dec '13

09 Dec '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 Christopher Meng <cickumqt(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproj | |ect.org | --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng <cickumqt(a)gmail.com> --- There might have some errors in the spec which caused my fedora-review failed to review: DEBUG: Running: rpm -ql --dump -p /home/rpmaker/Desktop/unifont/results/unifont-6.3.20131020-3.fc21.i686.rpm DEBUG: Running: rpm -ql --dump -p /home/rpmaker/Desktop/unifont/results/unifont-fonts-6.3.20131020-3.fc21.noarch.rpm DEBUG: Running: rpm -ql --dump -p /home/rpmaker/Desktop/unifont/results/unifont-debuginfo-6.3.20131020-3.fc21.i686.rpm DEBUG: Exception down the road... Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 215, in run self._do_run(outfile) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 205, in _do_run self._do_report(outfile) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 90, in _do_report self._run_checks(self.bug.spec_file, self.bug.srpm_file, outfile) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 109, in _run_checks writedown=not Settings.no_report) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/checks.py", line 389, in run_checks run_check(name) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/checks.py", line 366, in run_check check.run() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/plugins/generic_build.py", line 192, in run listfiles() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/plugins/generic_build.py", line 168, in listfiles dirs, files = deps.listpaths(path) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/deps.py", line 183, in listpaths path, mode = line.rsplit(None, 10)[0:5:4] ValueError: need more than 1 value to unpack -- 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=PC0gNRMfFT&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1036754] Review Request: ttembed - Remove embedding limitations from TrueType fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Dec '13

07 Dec '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036754 T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pvoborni(a)redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(pvoborni(a)redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #1 from T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth(a)gmail.com> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Status: NEEDS WORK ===== MUST Issues ==== These issues must be fixed prior to approval. - The upstream tarball distribution contains a man page, but it is not included in the binary RPM. Please install the ttembed.1 man page. ===== SHOULD Issues ==== Packagers are strongly encouraged to resolve these issues where possible, but they are not blockers. - Does not use parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Guess this is such a tiny C program that this doesn't help much, but please consider adding it if the Makefile supports it anyway. - %check is present and all tests pass. Upstream does not seem to ship tests. You could BuildRequire a font and run this on it and test that it was successful, just as a little smoke test in case something goes south and the build fails ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/patches/FedoraReview/1036754-ttembed/licensecheck.txt Public Domain -> OK [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ttembed-1.1-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm ttembed-1.1-1.fc19.src.rpm ttembed.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fsType -> mistype ttembed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ttembed ttembed.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fsType -> mistype 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Please install the man page included in the tarball, everything else is false positive. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ttembed ttembed.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fsType -> mistype ttembed.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ttembed 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' See above. Requires -------- ttembed (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) OK Provides -------- ttembed: ttembed ttembed(x86-64) OK Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hisdeedsaredust/ttembed/archive/v1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2d66e7b2f8bb9c4ab808dedc07df29b4980a84685e57fa07b56c090b6f4482db CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2d66e7b2f8bb9c4ab808dedc07df29b4980a84685e57fa07b56c090b6f4482db OK Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b1036754 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- 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=z6kLmuVJ5T&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1031588] Review Request: google-phetsarath-fonts - The font for the Lao language
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Dec '13

07 Dec '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1031588 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |google-phetsarath-fonts-1.0 | |1-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-12-07 02:02:33 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- google-phetsarath-fonts-1.01-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- 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=E00BniaygW&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1037629] New: Add Google crosextra Caladea font in F18
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Dec '13

07 Dec '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1037629 Bug ID: 1037629 Summary: Add Google crosextra Caladea font in F18 Product: Fedora Version: 18 Component: google-crosextra-caladea-fonts Assignee: pnemade(a)redhat.com Reporter: pnemade(a)redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: eko(a)lanet.lv, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net, paul(a)frixxon.co.uk, pnemade(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com Depends On: 1037291 The Google crosextra Caladea fonts are missing in Fedora 18. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1037291 [Bug 1037291] Add Google crosextra Carlito font in F18 -- 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=hRyAzNTPNT&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 7

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1036754] Review Request: ttembed - Remove embedding limitations from TrueType fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla 07 Dec '13

07 Dec '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036754 T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tchollingsworth(a)gmail.com Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |tchollingsworth(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- 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=Fr3SffVMqG&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1038128] Review Request: libeot - a library for parsing Embedded OpenType font files
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Dec '13

06 Dec '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1038128 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproje | |ct.org, panemade(a)gmail.com -- 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=wkstKjVHar&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1037131] New: input-pad FTBFS if "-Werror=format-security" flag is used
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Dec '13

06 Dec '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1037131 Bug ID: 1037131 Summary: input-pad FTBFS if "-Werror=format-security" flag is used Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: input-pad Assignee: tfujiwar(a)redhat.com Reporter: dkholia(a)redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, tfujiwar(a)redhat.com Description of problem ---------------------- input-pad fails to build if "-Werror=format-security" flag is used. ... geometry-gdk.c:584:13: error: format not a string literal and no format arguments [-Werror=format-security] ... We are working on a proposal to enable "-Werror=format-security" for all packages. Once this flag is enabled, GCC will refuse to compile code that could be vulnerable to a string format security flaw. For more details, please see https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1185 page. To understand why it is important to fix this, please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Format-Security-FAQ page. How to fix this --------------- The fix for these errors is quite simple. It's a matter of changing a line like, printf(foo); to read, printf("%s", foo); That's it. Please fix this issue in rawhide with a patch (which you should submit to upstream to merge moving forward). Please do a new build with the fix in rawhide. Other releases do not need to be directly fixed, but there should be no harm in pushing out this fix/patch with other needed changes to those branches. In the event you don't fix this bug before the next mass rebuild, provenpackagers may step in and update your package(s) to fix this issue. How reproducible ---------------- Build input-pad-1.0.2-5.fc20.src.rpm with "-Werror=format-security" flag to reproduce the problem. To make this process easier, you can use a modified "redhat-rpm-config" package from http://people.fedoraproject.org/~halfie/artifacts/redhat-rpm-config/ URL. $ sha256sum redhat-rpm-config-9.1.0-56.fc20.* faad7594b2080fe76497d0ce50808c905a93dd7b41c1defdde5ca57e3833d3d2 redhat-rpm-config-9.1.0-56.fc20.noarch.rpm 5aa9357174305c7285ffdbc92d7ffe1c07a8a95d5459b930461308f5aad75413 redhat-rpm-config-9.1.0-56.fc20.src.rpm -- 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=4E3zFIll5g&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 4

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1025196] Review Request: fcitx-skk - Japanese SKK (Simple Kana Kanji) Engine for Fcitx
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Dec '13

06 Dec '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025196 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- fcitx-skk-0.1.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- 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=26f2B0KLf9&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1036462] Review Request: unifont - Tools and glyph descriptions in the unifont format
by Red Hat Bugzilla 05 Dec '13

05 Dec '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1036462 --- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> --- v3: insert optflags/ldflags Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/unifont-6.3.20131020-3.fc20.src.rpm -- 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=TcBRJgkqxm&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1037291] Add Google crosextra Carlito font in F18
by Red Hat Bugzilla 05 Dec '13

05 Dec '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1037291 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |google-crosextra-carlito-fo | |nts-1.103-0.1.20130920.fc18 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-12-05 05:32:25 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- google-crosextra-carlito-fonts-1.103-0.1.20130920.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- 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=LGMV7Zahyk&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

i18n-bugs December 2013