[Bug 2331684] New: Review Request: fontmake - Compile fonts from sources (UFO, Glyphs) to binary (OpenType, TrueType)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
Bug ID: 2331684 Summary: Review Request: fontmake - Compile fonts from sources (UFO, Glyphs) to binary (OpenType, TrueType) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: code@musicinmybrain.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/fontmake.spec SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/fontmake-3.10.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
Description:
fontmake compiles fonts from various sources (.glyphs, .ufo, designspace) into binaries (.otf, .ttf). You can use it to create static instances and variable fonts.
Fedora Account System Username: music
Since python-glyphsLib was just updated in Rawhide, reviewing this will require passing --mock-options=--enablerepo=local to fedora-review, at least until the next successful Rawhide compose.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8377415 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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=2331684
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |mhroncok@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Why did you put %pyproject_extras_subpkg between %generate_buildrequires and %build?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
--- Comment #3 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2)
Why did you put %pyproject_extras_subpkg between %generate_buildrequires and %build?
No reason. I suspect I was setting up the build conditionals for %pyproject_buildrequires and %pyproject_extras_subpkg at the same time, and that lead to me accidentally leaving them next to each other. Normally I would put %pyproject_extras_subpkg right after the subpackage to which it applies (or in this case, the base package – right before %prep), since that’s the least surprising place for it. I’ll move it and re-upload.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
--- Comment #4 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- New Spec URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20241211/fontmake.spec New SRPM URL: https://music.fedorapeople.org/20241211/fontmake-3.10.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2062107 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2062107&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8377415 to 8377543
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8377543 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- 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=2331684
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mhroncok@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
--- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- The spec is sane.
Consider using a SourceLicense tag to record the additional licenses.
For help2man consider using %py3_test_envvars.
Will run Fedora Review manually due to the python-glyphsLib update.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
--- Comment #8 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Dependencies are sane.
$ rpm -qRp fontmake-3.10.0-1.fc42.src.rpm (python3dist(tomli) if python3-devel < 3.11) help2man pyproject-rpm-macros python3-devel python3dist(fontmath) >= 0.9.4 python3dist(fonttools) >= 4.54.1 python3dist(fonttools[lxml]) >= 4.54.1 python3dist(fonttools[ufo]) >= 4.54.1 python3dist(fonttools[unicode]) >= 4.54.1 python3dist(glyphslib) >= 6.9.2 python3dist(packaging) python3dist(pip) >= 19 python3dist(pytest) >= 4.5 python3dist(setuptools) python3dist(setuptools-scm) python3dist(ufo2ft) >= 3.3.1 python3dist(ufo2ft[compreffor]) >= 3.3.1 python3dist(ufolib2) >= 0.16 python3dist(ufolib2[json]) >= 0.16 python3dist(wheel) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(DynamicBuildRequires) <= 4.15.0-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(RichDependencies) <= 4.12.0-1
$ rpm -qRp fontmake-3.10.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) = 3.13 python3.13dist(fontmath) >= 0.9.4 python3.13dist(fonttools) >= 4.54.1 python3.13dist(fonttools[lxml]) >= 4.54.1 python3.13dist(fonttools[ufo]) >= 4.54.1 python3.13dist(fonttools[unicode]) >= 4.54.1 python3.13dist(glyphslib) >= 6.9.2 python3.13dist(ufo2ft) >= 3.3.1 python3.13dist(ufo2ft[compreffor]) >= 3.3.1 python3.13dist(ufolib2) >= 0.16 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PartialHardlinkSets) <= 4.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
$ rpm -qPp fontmake-3.10.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm fontmake = 3.10.0-1.fc42 python-fontmake = 3.10.0-1.fc42 python3-fontmake = 3.10.0-1.fc42 python3.13-fontmake = 3.10.0-1.fc42 python3.13dist(fontmake) = 3.10 python3dist(fontmake) = 3.10
$ rpm -qRp fontmake+json-3.10.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm fontmake = 3.10.0-1.fc42 python(abi) = 3.13 python3.13dist(ufolib2) >= 0.16 python3.13dist(ufolib2[json]) >= 0.16 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
$ rpm -qPp fontmake+json-3.10.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm fontmake+json = 3.10.0-1.fc42 python3.13dist(fontmake[json]) = 3.10 python3dist(fontmake[json]) = 3.10
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
--- Comment #9 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Fedora-Review says:
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3.13dist(fonttools[unicode]) >= 4.54.1 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/
But it doesn't provide deprecated(), I don't know where this comes from. For the sake of this review, let's ignore it, but I will investigate.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- Package approved
wrt:
fontmake.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ufo', '%description -l en_US ufo -> UFO') fontmake.noarch: E: spelling-error ('designspace', '%description -l en_US designspace -> design space, design-space, designs pace') fontmake.noarch: E: spelling-error ('otf', '%description -l en_US otf -> oft, of, oaf') fontmake.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ttf', '%description -l en_US ttf -> ttys') fontmake.src: E: spelling-error ('ufo', '%description -l en_US ufo -> UFO') fontmake.src: E: spelling-error ('designspace', '%description -l en_US designspace -> design space, design-space, designs pace') fontmake.src: E: spelling-error ('otf', '%description -l en_US otf -> oft, of, oaf') fontmake.src: E: spelling-error ('ttf', '%description -l en_US ttf -> ttys') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Consider filtering some of those in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmlint/blob/rawhide/f/rpmlint.config#_45...
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "MIT License". [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 29079 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]: 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 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
Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [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 [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
===== 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. [?]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: 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]: 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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: fontmake-3.10.0-1.fc42.noarch.rpm fontmake-3.10.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpzd1ibtu7')] checks: 32, packages: 2
fontmake.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ufo', '%description -l en_US ufo -> UFO') fontmake.noarch: E: spelling-error ('designspace', '%description -l en_US designspace -> design space, design-space, designs pace') fontmake.noarch: E: spelling-error ('otf', '%description -l en_US otf -> oft, of, oaf') fontmake.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ttf', '%description -l en_US ttf -> ttys') fontmake.src: E: spelling-error ('ufo', '%description -l en_US ufo -> UFO') fontmake.src: E: spelling-error ('designspace', '%description -l en_US designspace -> design space, design-space, designs pace') fontmake.src: E: spelling-error ('otf', '%description -l en_US otf -> oft, of, oaf') fontmake.src: E: spelling-error ('ttf', '%description -l en_US ttf -> ttys') 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 0 warnings, 14 filtered, 8 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Consider filtering some of those in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmlint/blob/rawhide/f/rpmlint.config#_45...
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 checks: 32, packages: 1
fontmake.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ufo', '%description -l en_US ufo -> UFO') fontmake.noarch: E: spelling-error ('designspace', '%description -l en_US designspace -> design space, design-space, designs pace') fontmake.noarch: E: spelling-error ('otf', '%description -l en_US otf -> oft, of, oaf') fontmake.noarch: E: spelling-error ('ttf', '%description -l en_US ttf -> ttys') 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 0 warnings, 9 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/f/fontmake/fontmake-3.10.0.zi... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ae78d826e7a372933b1cd6eebe6d67becb9a8508f4aca6df524eac38508398e4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ae78d826e7a372933b1cd6eebe6d67becb9a8508f4aca6df524eac38508398e4
Requires -------- fontmake (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python3 python(abi) python3.13dist(fontmath) python3.13dist(fonttools) python3.13dist(fonttools[lxml]) python3.13dist(fonttools[ufo]) python3.13dist(fonttools[unicode]) python3.13dist(glyphslib) python3.13dist(ufo2ft) python3.13dist(ufo2ft[compreffor]) python3.13dist(ufolib2)
Provides -------- fontmake: fontmake python-fontmake python3-fontmake python3.13-fontmake python3.13dist(fontmake) python3dist(fontmake)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.0 (fed5495) last change: 2019-03-17 Command line :try-fedora-review -b 2331684 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o=--enablerepo=local Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Python, Generic Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Ruby, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, Perl, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
--- Comment #11 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com --- (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #9)
Fedora-Review says:
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: python3.13dist(fonttools[unicode]) >= 4.54.1 is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/
But it doesn't provide deprecated(), I don't know where this comes from. For the sake of this review, let's ignore it, but I will investigate.
https://pagure.io/FedoraReview/pull-request/526
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
--- Comment #12 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Thank you for the review!
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7)
The spec is sane.
Consider using a SourceLicense tag to record the additional licenses.
That’s easy enough to do here, and I don’t object to doing it here, but I’m curious – are we moving in the direction of encouraging this across the board in Fedora? It looks like there are fewer than 50 packages currently using SourceLicense in Fedora overall, which is fewer than the number of packages I would add it to if I adapted SourceLicense in my “own” packages.
For help2man consider using %py3_test_envvars.
That’s a good idea. It defines more environment variables than I’m doing manually here, but it tidies up the spec file.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #10)
Consider filtering some of those in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmlint/blob/rawhide/f/rpmlint.config#_45...
That’s not a bad idea. I didn’t realize rpmlint carried a generic collection of jargon words.
Particularly useful would be [Mm]etapackage, which rpmlint flags on every Python extra metapackage and every Rust feature metapackage.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #11)
Thanks for looking into that! But why was the python3.13dist(fonttools[unicode]) dependency unsolvable? python3-fonttools+unicode exists and has had appropriate Provides for fonttools[unicode] for a long time.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
--- Comment #13 from Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com ---
are we moving in the direction of encouraging this across the board in Fedora?
Not that I am aware of. But it's not disallowed and since you already did the work, I thought it might be easier to present that data nicer than in a comment.
But why was the python3.13dist(fonttools[unicode]) dependency unsolvable?
I thought it was because of the version constraint (python3.13dist(fonttools[unicode]) >= 4.54.1), but that was already available for a while -- perhaps it was just a fluke.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
--- Comment #14 from Ben Beasley code@musicinmybrain.net --- Added to release monitoring: https://release-monitoring.org/project/15785/
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #10)
Consider filtering some of those in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmlint/blob/rawhide/f/rpmlint.config#_45...
I opened https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmlint/pull-request/38, although I have my doubts, expressed in the PR, about how well this approach scales to the size of the underlying problem.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fontmake
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-966fbbd307 (fontmake-3.10.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-966fbbd307
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2331684
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2024-12-12 01:46:45
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-966fbbd307 (fontmake-3.10.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com