[Bug 2095732] New: Review Request: daniel-wikholm-segment16-fonts - Collection of fonts mimicking the look of 16-segment digital displays
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095732
Bug ID: 2095732 Summary: Review Request: daniel-wikholm-segment16-fonts - Collection of fonts mimicking the look of 16-segment digital displays Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fedora@svgames.pl QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/daniel-wikholm-segment16-fonts-20171229-1/daniel-w... srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/daniel-wikholm-segment16-fonts-20171229-1/daniel-w... koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=88096554
Description: Daniel Wikholm's Segment16 is a collection of 3 font families mimicking the look of 16-segment digital displays.
Fedora Account System Username: suve
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095732
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Unofficial review:
a) A license file should also be packaged, though this may need to be manually added. b) Perhaps separate packages should be used for the different fonts as they are separate zip files on many free font websites? One might possibly justify font family, see example spec files: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/culmus-fonts/blob/rawhide/f/culmus-fonts.... https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/khmer-os-fonts/blob/rawhide/f/khmer-os-fo...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095732
Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl ---
A license file should also be packaged, though this may need to be manually added.
I'll try to find some way to contact the original author, but if that's not possible, then yes, the guidelines allow for providing a separate license file. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...
Perhaps separate packages should be used for the different fonts
I did that initially, but ultimately decided against it, since the resulting package is 99 KiB in .rpm form and 1.4MiB when installed.
When split, the numbers were as follows: - segment16a: 41KiB RPM / 339KiB installed - segment16b: 39KiB RPM / 297KiB installed - segment16c: 48KiB RPM / 774KiB installed
I still have a copy of the "split" spec, so I can revert to that, if preferred.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095732
--- Comment #3 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- According to https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_sour... they can be packaged together if their release is coordinated and they are part of the same font family. Your description indicates: "Daniel Wikholm's Segment16 is a collection of 3 font families mimicking the look of 16-segment digital displays.", so they are separate but related font families. If this is the case , 3 separate packages should be used. My understanding of font family from https://www.masterclass.com/articles/font-family-guide#what-is-a-font-family is that "A font family is a collection of fonts that share particular design features within a specific style of typeface", so 3 separate packages should be created.
A meta package can be used for these three font families https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_asse... - though this is not strictly necessary, but may improve user experience when installing.
The fonts are on a number of free font sites, but the original upload location is unclear.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095732
--- Comment #4 from Artur Frenszek-Iwicki fedora@svgames.pl --- I tried finding some way to contact the author, but no luck. As such, I reluctantly settled on adding a separate source file containing the license text. I've also modified the spec so that each variant (Segment16A, Segment16B, Segment16C) is built into a separate binary RPM.
spec: https://svgames.pl/fedora/daniel-wikholm-segment16-fonts-20171229-2/daniel-w... srpm: https://svgames.pl/fedora/daniel-wikholm-segment16-fonts-20171229-2/daniel-w... koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=88815932
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095732
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gwync@protonmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gwync@protonmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095732
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- I'll take this. if you have time to do one of the following I'd be thrilled. Listed in order of priority (for me anyway. :))
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2082363 SDL2_Pango https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2119499 python-qpageview https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2035958 libchipcard
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095732
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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. [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). [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. [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 30720 bytes in 3 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 %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: [-]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source20: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [x]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://www.wfonts.com/download/data/2017/12/30/segment16c/segment16c.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 38342a30a54deb723dbfa551e24a89ad2c92419445b8c22842f5e44038084d72 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 38342a30a54deb723dbfa551e24a89ad2c92419445b8c22842f5e44038084d72 https://www.wfonts.com/download/data/2017/12/30/segment16b/segment16b.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 93b4d9a86a7f879a90c780d523d389f1a2026cd766dd32c851f7796eec765196 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93b4d9a86a7f879a90c780d523d389f1a2026cd766dd32c851f7796eec765196 https://www.wfonts.com/download/data/2017/12/30/segment16a/segment16a.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3065c53d7f062a078f74a4525d5327d7c8aa02eda58e9080f53184f5f5a53422 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3065c53d7f062a078f74a4525d5327d7c8aa02eda58e9080f53184f5f5a53422
Requires -------- daniel-wikholm-segment16c-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(daniel-wikholm-segment16c-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem
Provides -------- daniel-wikholm-segment16c-fonts: config(daniel-wikholm-segment16c-fonts) daniel-wikholm-segment16c-fonts font(segment16c) metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.daniel-wikholm-segment16c-fonts.metainfo.xml)
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2095732 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, fonts Disabled plugins: Python, Perl, Java, PHP, C/C++, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, R Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095732
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095732
--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/daniel-wikholm-segment16-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095732
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-d3b7f199cb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d3b7f199cb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095732
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-4cb9d8575e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4cb9d8575e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095732
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-d3b7f199cb 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-2022-d3b7f199cb *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d3b7f199cb
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=2095732
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-4cb9d8575e 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-2022-4cb9d8575e *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4cb9d8575e
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=2095732
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-09-01 09:40:20
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-4cb9d8575e has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2095732
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-d3b7f199cb has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com