https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Bug ID: 1822847 Summary: Review Request: vl-gothic-fonts - Japanese TrueType fonts Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tagoh@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts-20141... Description: VLGothic provides Japanese TrueType fonts from the Vine Linux project. Most of the glyphs are taken from the M+ and Sazanami Gothic fonts, but some have also been improved by the project.
Fedora Account System Username: tagoh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproj | |ect.org
--- Comment #1 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- This is rename of vlgothic-fonts.
Re-review is needed for package renaming according to the new fonts packaging guidelines.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net --- Quick review:
1. obligatory rpmlint check:
vl-gothic-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace vl-gothic-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/vl-gothic-fonts/README.sazanami vl-gothic-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace vl-gothic-fonts.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE3} vl-gothic-fonts.src:47: W: macro-in-comment %{SOURCE4} vl-gothic-fonts.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: %{name}-1331050.patch vl-gothic-fonts.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: %{name}-p-1331050.patch vl-gothic-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation vl-pgothic-fonts.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monospace -> mono space, mono-space, aerospace vl-pgothic-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/vl-pgothic-fonts/README.sazanami
Please remove the commented lines and fix the readmes using %linuxtext or another method. For the patch part, rpmlint is mistaken, do as you wish
2. font installation check:
$ fc-scan -f "%{family[0]};%{style[0]};%{fullname[0]};%{width};%{weight};%{slant};%{fontversion};%{file}\n" /usr/share/fonts/vl*fonts |sort -t ';' -k1,1d -k4,4n -k5,5n -k6,6n -k2,2d -k7,7dr | uniq | column --separator ';' -t VL Gothic regular VL Gothic 100 80 0 138936 /usr/share/fonts/vl-gothic-fonts/VL-Gothic-Regular.ttf VL PGothic regular VL PGothic 100 80 0 138936 /usr/share/fonts/vl-pgothic-fonts/VL-PGothic-Regular.ttf
The regular (minuscule) is certainly unusual and may trip some applications
3. spec comparison against official Fedora templates OK (lots of dead commented lines that should be removed)
4. since we only ship OpenType font families nowadays, maybe it is not useful to remind the font family format in Summary and description
5. You have some mixed tab/space indenting in the spec
Otherwise, looks good, thanks for the conversion
APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |ppisar@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net --- Hi Petr,
Do you mean anything particular in changing the assignation of this issue, or is it a side-effect of the tool you use to add yourself in CC?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- A review has a life cycle. When someone stars reviewing a package, he should assign the bug to himself, change the status to assigned and set fedora-review flag to "?". Once a package is approved, the bug report keeps assigned to the reviewer and when the submitter builds the package, the submitter closed the bug or attaches is it to a Bodhi updates so that the bug report gets closed.
Recently, a review status listing https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ for updated to reflect and enforce the review life cycle. So I'm going through a list of reviews in an inconsistent state and correcting them. My change in the review was exactly one of the corrections. Nothing particular against this package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net --- This review cycle does not reflect reality.
When the review is done as fedora-review+, the rest of the work is requester-side, not reviewer-side When the review is done as fedora-review-, again the fixing work is requester-side, not reviewer-side
Practically, unless the requester is available to act on the review result at once, no reviewer is going to commit following the result of the review months if not years later (yes some of those are *that* old).
Thus, the only state during which it is correct to assign stuff on the reviewer, is when the reviewer has taken the review but not finished it yet (fedora-review?). The rest of the time the only person that can make things move forward is the requester.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #6 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Sorry, my bad. while there was some trouble in macros, I missed opportunities to get this package into the repo. I'm revisiting this again for Bug#1858617 and updating the spec and srpm. also confirmed it is buildable on rawhide now.
It doesn't make too much changes but would be appreciated if anyone can re-review it. thanks.
Spec URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts-20200...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net's needinfo: Bug 1822847: Review Request: vl-gothic-fonts - Japanese TrueType fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #8 from Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org --- This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.
The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #9 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts-20220...
Updated spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #10 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts-20220...
Updated spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #11 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- When running fedora-review, get the following:
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 3.1 starting (python version = 3.10.6, NVR = mock-3.1-1.fc 36)... Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.1 INFO: Mock Version: 3.1 Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.1 INFO: Mock Version: 3.1 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/vl-pgothic-fonts-20220612-1.fc38.noarch.r pm /builddir/vl-gothic-fonts-all-20220612-1.fc38.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M cfe323d52a7142cf973407c55fd15f1c -D /var/lib/mo ck/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp /mock-resolv.w_8ssvea:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --sete nv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/instal lation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbi n --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-c hroot> \s-\v$ --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf =off /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --rele asever 38 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disable plugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/vl-pgothic-fonts- 20220612-1.fc38.noarch.rpm /builddir/vl-gothic-fonts-all-20220612-1.fc38.noarch. rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #12 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Sorry I missed this. How did you run it?
That seems working fine if I do fedora-review -b 1822847.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #13 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- fedora-review seems to run for me now. Initial comments: a) Can the sources be downloaded from https://mirrors.gigenet.com/OSDN//vlgothic/77450/VLGothic-% b) When running fedora-review, I get the following output "INFO: Install command returned error code 30", the reason for this is unclear, but seems to be an error related to installation https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/blob/main/mock/py/mockbuild/... c) Consider naming the metapackage vl-gothic-fonts-all https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_asse... d) Example multipackage spec files: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/khmer-os-fonts/blob/rawhide/f/khmer-os-fo... https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/culmus-fonts/blob/rawhide/f/culmus-fonts.... https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/julietaula-montserrat-fonts/blob/rawhide/... e) Without the metapackage, there are no installation errors. With the metapackage, there is an installation error because the dependencies of the metapackage cannot be found. e) Possible updates to spec file (probably still want to include metapackage): BuildArch: noarch Version: 20220612 Release: 1%{?dist} License: mplus and BSD URL: http://dicey.org/vlgothic
%global foundry vl %global fontlicenses LICENSE_J.mplus LICENSE_E.mplus LICENSE LICENSE.en %global fontdocs README README_J.mplus README.sazanami README_E.mplus %global fontdocsex %{fontlicenses}
%global common_description %{expand: VLGothic provides Japanese TrueType fonts from the Vine Linux project. Most of the glyphs are taken from the M+ and Sazanami Gothic fonts, but some have also been improved by the project. }
%global fontfamily1 VL Gothic %global fontsummary1 Japanese TrueType font %global fontpkgheader1 %{expand: Obsoletes: vlgothic-fonts < %{version}-%{release} Provides: vl-gothic-regular-fonts = %{version}-%{release} } %global fontpkgname1 %{foundry}-gothic-regular-fonts %global fonts1 VL-Gothic-Regular.ttf %global fontconfs1 %{SOURCE11} %global fontdescription1 %{expand: %{common_description}
This package provides the monospace VLGothic font. }
%global fontfamily2 VL PGothic %global fontsummary2 Proportional Japanese TrueType font %global fontpkgheader2 %{expand: Obsoletes: vlgothic-p-fonts < %{version}-%{release} Provides: vl-pgothic-regular-fonts = %{version}-%{release} } %global fontpkgname2 %{foundry}-pgothic-regular-fonts %global fonts2 VL-PGothic-Regular.ttf %global fontconfs2 %{SOURCE12} %global fontdescription2 %{expand: %{common_description}
This package provides the VLGothic font with proportional glyphs for some non-Japanese characters. }
Source0: https://mirrors.gigenet.com/OSDN//vlgothic/77450/VLGothic-%%7Bversion%7D.tar... Source11: 65-3-vl-gothic-regular-fonts.conf Source12: 65-2-vl-pgothic-regular-fonts.conf
Name: vl-gothic-fonts Summary: Japanese TrueType fonts %description %wordwrap -v common_description
%fontpkg -a
%prep %autosetup -n VLGothic iconv -f EUC-JP -t UTF-8 -o README.sazanami.tmp README.sazanami rm README.sazanami mv README.sazanami.tmp README.sazanami
%build %fontbuild -a
%install %fontinstall -a
%check %fontcheck -a
%fontfiles -a
%changelog
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #14 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #13)
c) Consider naming the metapackage vl-gothic-fonts-all https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/ #_assembling_different_family_font_packages_font_metapackages
I don't get it. what are you proposing?
d) Example multipackage spec files: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/khmer-os-fonts/blob/rawhide/f/khmer-os- fonts.spec https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/culmus-fonts/blob/rawhide/f/culmus-fonts. spec https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/julietaula-montserrat-fonts/blob/rawhide/ f/julietaula-montserrat-fonts.spec
same.
e) Without the metapackage, there are no installation errors. With the metapackage, there is an installation error because the dependencies of the metapackage cannot be found.
What's the real error? it works for me though. please add the full logs if you found any issues.
e) Possible updates to spec file (probably still want to include metapackage):
%global fontpkgname1 %{foundry}-gothic-regular-fonts
Why did you add "regular" in the package name? it is a style. not a part of the family name. it is not a case for vl-gothic-fonts, but, if a font has non-regular style fonts such as italic, are you going to sub-package it separately? No, the intention here is to get same families installed together and provide all variants in one package for better experience. that isn't what our packaging guidelines says.
Only updated source URL.
Spec URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts-20220...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #15 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Checking logs.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/
===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/1822847-vl-gothic- fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: 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 [-]: 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. [x]: 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 61440 bytes in 8 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]: 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 %license. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [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
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 3.1 starting (python version = 3.10.7, NVR = mock-3.1-1.fc36)... Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.1 INFO: Mock Version: 3.1 Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.1 INFO: Mock Version: 3.1 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/vl-gothic-fonts-all-20220612-2.fc38.noarch.rpm /builddir/vl-pgothic-fonts-20220612-2.fc38.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 1b9f3b2d3c7d41908aadfa9f23fb5175 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.o1bpkcoc:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v$ --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 38 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/vl-gothic-fonts-all-20220612-2.fc38.noarch.rpm /builddir/vl-pgothic-fonts-20220612-2.fc38.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts
Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://mirrors.gigenet.com/OSDN/vlgothic/77450/VLGothic-20220612.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c201dd3fa73492a2551a339fe235608d3be771237fd5868a526f1b3eb3164d93 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c201dd3fa73492a2551a339fe235608d3be771237fd5868a526f1b3eb3164d93
Requires -------- vl-pgothic-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(vl-pgothic-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem
vl-gothic-fonts-all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vl-gothic-fonts vl-pgothic-fonts
Provides -------- vl-pgothic-fonts: config(vl-pgothic-fonts) font(vlpgothic) font(vlpゴシック) metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.vl-pgothic-fonts.metainfo.xml) vl-pgothic-fonts vlgothic-p-fonts
vl-gothic-fonts-all: vl-gothic-fonts-all
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1822847 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: fonts, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, R, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #16 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Created attachment 1916268 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1916268&action=edit rootlog obtained from fedora-review
Shows failed installations when using fedora-review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #17 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- I'm not sure what the problem is. I see the same result but I can install them: $ rpm -ivh --test 1822847-vl-gothic-fonts/results/vl-*noarch.rpm Verifying... ################################# [100%] Preparing... ################################# [100%] $
And the weird thing is that they were ignoring vl-gothic-fonts package which should be generated together: INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/vl-gothic-fonts-all-20220612-2.fc38.noarch.rpm /builddir/vl-pgothic-fonts-20220612-2.fc38.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 38 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/vl-gothic-fonts-all-20220612-2.fc38.noarch.rpm /builddir/vl-pgothic-fonts-20220612-2.fc38.noarch.rpm
Thus that looks like a bug in fedora-review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2132574
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2132574 [Bug 2132574] Weird installation errors
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- It installs from https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/vl-gothic-fonts/ so assume it is a problem with mock not the packaging. Probably the extensive comments from the template can be removed, but it is not essential. Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847 Bug 1822847 depends on bug 2132574, which changed state.
Bug 2132574 Summary: Mock fails to install metapackages with local dependencies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2132574
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CANTFIX
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
--- Comment #19 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vl-gothic-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2022-10-12 08:30:12
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(tagoh@redhat.com)
--- Comment #20 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122022 would be appreciated if time allows.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847 Bug 1822847 depends on bug 2132574, which changed state.
Bug 2132574 Summary: Fedora-review fails to install metapackages with local dependencies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2132574
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|CANTFIX |---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(tagoh@redhat.com) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847 Bug 1822847 depends on bug 2132574, which changed state.
Bug 2132574 Summary: Fedora-review fails to install metapackages with local dependencies https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2132574
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847
miky678 mjhon9911@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mjhon9911@gmail.com
--- Comment #21 from miky678 mjhon9911@gmail.com --- I’ve been following this Bugzilla thread and it’s interesting how small character or encoding issues can create unexpected behavior in systems. Unicode handling is often overlooked until something breaks. For anyone testing display consistency across platforms, especially with styled usernames or special symbols, tools like https://thestylishname.com/ can actually help generate different Unicode variations to reproduce rendering quirks. It’s a simple way to see how various environments interpret decorative text.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com