https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
Bug ID: 2149686 Summary: Review Request: hack-fonts - A typeface designed for source code Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hegjon@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/hack-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/hack-fonts-3.003-1.fc36.src.rpm
Description: Hack is designed to be a workhorse typeface for source code. It has deep roots in the free, open source typeface community and expands upon the contributions of the Bitstream Vera & DejaVu projects. The large x-height + wide aperture + low contrast design make it legible at commonly used source code text sizes with a sweet spot that runs in the 8 - 14 range.
Fedora Account System Username: jonny
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94743910
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2149698
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149698 [Bug 2149698] Review Request: sile - The SILE Typesetter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- This package review conflicts with bug 1258542. That package review was introduced in 2015-08-31, but is still in limbo.
I suggest that the other package is getting closed if this one is approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) CC| |helio@kde.org
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- *** Bug 1258542 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present.
===== MUST items =====
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]: 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 %license. [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", "MIT License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2149686-hack- fonts/licensecheck.txt [?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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). [?]: 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. [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 20480 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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: [-]: 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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
fonts: [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined [!]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find ttname command, install ttname package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined
Rpmlint ------- Checking: hack-fonts-3.003-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmplfmnyho1')] checks: 31, packages: 1
hack-fonts.spec:39: W: setup-not-quiet 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack/raw/v3.003/config/fontconfig/45-Hack.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 285aa89a2a90f6bc6422d62cd13889d303903da886e435c6eaa2adef66e25ae6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 285aa89a2a90f6bc6422d62cd13889d303903da886e435c6eaa2adef66e25ae6 https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack/raw/v3.003/README.md : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 249886125a58c914ab83a92659ca4e12c39a40535e9eeca735dd57f123264105 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 249886125a58c914ab83a92659ca4e12c39a40535e9eeca735dd57f123264105 https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack/raw/v3.003/LICENSE.md : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1f61bb7c790c59b4b0ecdf304628b94e42ae4c8020094a8c3da73381ab212623 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1f61bb7c790c59b4b0ecdf304628b94e42ae4c8020094a8c3da73381ab212623 https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack/releases/download/v3.003/Hack-v3.003-... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d9ed5d0a07525c7e7bd587b4364e4bc41021dd668658d09864453d9bb374a78d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d9ed5d0a07525c7e7bd587b4364e4bc41021dd668658d09864453d9bb374a78d
Requires --------
Provides --------
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2149686 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, fonts Disabled plugins: Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, Haskell, R, C/C++, Python, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) Vendor ID in all cases is SRC for Source Foundry, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/vendors/ Maybe the name should be src-hack-fonts? b) Can you add a license breakdown in the spec file?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
--- Comment #5 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com ---
a) Vendor ID in all cases is SRC for Source Foundry, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/vendors/ Maybe the name should be src-hack-fonts?
I think that can confuse users, none of the other distros have a src prefix/suffix for the hack fonts. src could easily be confused with the source code of the font.
https://repology.org/project/fonts:hack/versions
If setting a %global foundry, then I think it should be set to sourcefoundry or source-foundry.
b) Can you add a license breakdown in the spec file?
What do you mean by license breakdown, I thought all font files had the same license?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- source-foundry seems good though is long. Asking on mailing list.
The spec license field indicates MIT AND Bitstream-Vera. Indicating that font files are under both licenses and Public domain, and all other files under MIT should be sufficient, this is my understanding from: https://github.com/source-foundry/Hack/blob/master/FAQ.md#how-is-hack-licens...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
--- Comment #7 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- It is long, but source-foundry-hack-fonts seems ok. The guidelines suggest adding foundry name. As it is very easy to modify an open source font, this provides good disambiguation, even if other distros have not adopted this convention. People who make fonts seem not to often follow guidelines that make using them on a wide variety of computer systems easy.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
--- Comment #8 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Updated the spec file with license details in the %description and also added source-foundry to %foundry.
This caused the package name to be changed to source-foundry-hack-fonts, so the .spec and .src.rpm file to be renamed.
New urls:
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jonny/source-foundry-hack-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~jonny/source-foundry-hack-fonts-3.003-1.fc36.src.r...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: hack-fonts |Review Request: |- A typeface designed for |source-foundry-hack-fonts - |source code |A typeface designed for | |source code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
--- Comment #9 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jonny/SILE/build/5237883/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5238062 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Sorry for the delay. Checked with upstream. Name is long, but Source Foundry is the preferred name. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/source-foundry-hack-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
--- Comment #13 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #11)
Sorry for the delay. Checked with upstream. Name is long, but Source Foundry is the preferred name. Approved.
Thanks for the review. I will notify https://repology.org/ about the package name difference.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-90bed23399 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-90bed23399
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-90bed23399 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-90bed23399 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-90bed23399
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-288b9538d2 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-288b9538d2 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-288b9538d2
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-02-08 01:02:46
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-90bed23399 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149686
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-288b9538d2 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com