[Bug 2391432] New: Review Request: python-opentypesvg - Tools for making OpenType-SVG fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2391432
Bug ID: 2391432 Summary: Review Request: python-opentypesvg - Tools for making OpenType-SVG fonts Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: benson_muite@emailplus.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-opentypesvg.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-opentypesvg-1.1.5-1.fc42.src.rpm
description: Tools for making OpenType-SVG fonts
- addsvg adds an SVG table to a font, using SVG files provided. The font's format can be either OpenType or TrueType.
- dumpsvg saves the contents of a font's SVG table as individual SVG files. The font's format can be either OpenType, TrueType, WOFF, or WOFF2.
- fonts2svg generates a set of SVG glyph files from one or more fonts and hex colors for each of them. The fonts' format can be either OpenType, TrueType, WOFF, or WOFF2.
fas: fed500
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2391432
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged URL| |https://github.com/adobe-ty | |pe-tools/opentype-svg
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9499321 (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
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2391432
Rajeesh rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Rajeesh rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com --- Some changes needed: - add %doc README.md and %license LICENSE.md in the %files section - check and fix the warning of source package permissions (666) in srpm, if needed
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python: [-]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [-]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel [x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate. [x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files [-]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [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.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: python3-opentypesvg-1.1.5-1.fc44.noarch.rpm python-opentypesvg-1.1.5-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmphb5eb6xx')] checks: 32, packages: 2
python-opentypesvg.src: W: strange-permission opentypesvg-1.1.5.tar.gz 666 python-opentypesvg.src: W: strange-permission python-opentypesvg.spec 666 python-opentypesvg.src: E: spelling-error ('addsvg', '%description -l en_US addsvg -> address') python-opentypesvg.src: E: spelling-error ('dumpsvg', '%description -l en_US dumpsvg -> dumpster') python3-opentypesvg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/opentypesvg/addsvg.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-opentypesvg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/opentypesvg/dumpsvg.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-opentypesvg.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/opentypesvg/fonts2svg.py 644 /usr/bin/env python python3-opentypesvg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary addsvg python3-opentypesvg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dumpsvg python3-opentypesvg.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fonts2svg python3-opentypesvg.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 6 warnings, 7 filtered, 5 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 checks: 32, packages: 1
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s (none): E: there is no installed rpm "python3-opentypesvg". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting.
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/o/opentypesvg/opentypesvg-1.1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 21afa214d9a6c33743aa544f0a844779de99f9562f6990e4d3af8108adcd1b27 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 21afa214d9a6c33743aa544f0a844779de99f9562f6990e4d3af8108adcd1b27
Requires -------- python3-opentypesvg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.14dist(fonttools) python3.14dist(fonttools[woff])
Provides -------- python3-opentypesvg: python-opentypesvg python3-opentypesvg python3.14-opentypesvg python3.14dist(opentypesvg) python3dist(opentypesvg)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-opentypesvg --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, fonts, Haskell, Java, Perl, C/C++, R, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2391432
--- Comment #3 from Rajeesh rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com --- Bump. Any plans to update this request with the suggestions?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2391432
--- Comment #4 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- (In reply to Rajeesh from comment #2)
Some changes needed:
- add %doc README.md and %license LICENSE.md in the %files section
Added %doc README.md. %license LICENSE.md is not needed as the license is packaged and has metadata:
rpm -qL python3-opentypesvg-1.1.5-1.fc44.noarch.rpm /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/opentypesvg-1.1.5.dist-info/licenses/LICENSE.md
- check and fix the warning of source package permissions (666) in srpm, if
needed
Fixed.
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-opentypesvg.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/python-opentypesvg-1.1.5-1.fc44.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2391432
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9981620 (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
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2391432
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2121400 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2121400&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 9499321 to 9981620
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2391432
Rajeesh rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Rajeesh rajeeshknambiar@gmail.com --- Approved.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com