https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
Bug ID: 2149626 Summary: Review Request: libertinus-fonts - The Libertinus Fonts project 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/libertinus-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/libertinus-fonts-7.040-0.20221120.fc36.src.rp...
Description: The Libertinus Fonts project includes four main type families:
The Libertinus Serif family:
– 6 serif typefaces cover three weights (Regular, Semibold, Bold) in each of two styles (Regular, Italic); originally forked from Linux Libertine.
The Libertinus Sans family:
– 3 sans-serif typefaces cover Regular, a Bold weight, and an Italic style; originally forked from Linux Biolinum.
The Libertinus Mono family:
– 1 monospace typeface derived from the serif family; originally forked from Linux Libertine Mono.
The Libertinus Math family:
– 1 OpenType math typeface derived from the serif family with many extra glyphs and features for use in OpenType math-capable applications (such as LuaTeX, XeTeX, or MS Word 2007+).
Additionally included are 3 special-use families with a single typeface each:
– Libertinus Serif Display: A derivative of Libertinus Serif Regular optimized for display at large sizes.
– Libertinus Serif Initials: A derivative of Libertinus Serif with outlined variants of capital letter glyphs suitable for drop-caps or other decorations.
– Libertinus Keyboard: A derivative of Libertinus Sans with keyboard key outlines around each character suitable for use in technical documentation.
Fedora Account System Username: jonny
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94737953
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
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 --- Updated spec+srpm with %changelog entry.
Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94744283
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/libertinus-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/libertinus-fonts-7.040-1.fc36.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
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=2149626
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- texlive-libertinus-fonts also includes this font, but they are dragging in lots of perl and texlive dependencies.
The texlive variant should be replaced.
=============================================================================================== Package Architecture Version Repository Size =============================================================================================== Installing: texlive-libertinus-fonts noarch 9:svn57948-55.fc36 fedora 2.3 M Installing dependencies: groff-base x86_64 1.22.4-9.fc36 fedora 1.0 M ncurses x86_64 6.2-9.20210508.fc36 fedora 400 k perl-B x86_64 1.82-486.fc36 fedora 185 k perl-Carp noarch 1.52-479.fc36 fedora 29 k perl-Class-Struct noarch 0.66-486.fc36 fedora 27 k perl-Data-Dumper x86_64 2.183-3.fc36 fedora 56 k perl-Digest noarch 1.20-2.fc36 fedora 25 k perl-Digest-MD5 x86_64 2.58-479.fc36 fedora 36 k perl-DynaLoader x86_64 1.50-486.fc36 fedora 31 k perl-Encode x86_64 4:3.17-485.fc36 updates 1.7 M perl-Errno x86_64 1.33-486.fc36 fedora 20 k perl-Exporter noarch 5.76-480.fc36 fedora 31 k perl-Fcntl x86_64 1.14-486.fc36 fedora 25 k perl-File-Basename noarch 2.85-486.fc36 fedora 22 k perl-File-Copy noarch 2.35-486.fc36 fedora 25 k perl-File-Find noarch 1.39-486.fc36 fedora 30 k perl-File-Path noarch 2.18-479.fc36 fedora 35 k perl-File-Temp noarch 1:0.231.100-479.fc36 fedora 59 k perl-File-stat noarch 1.09-486.fc36 fedora 22 k perl-FileHandle noarch 2.03-486.fc36 fedora 20 k perl-Filter x86_64 2:1.61-1.fc36 updates 81 k perl-Getopt-Long noarch 1:2.52-479.fc36 fedora 60 k perl-Getopt-Std noarch 1.13-486.fc36 fedora 21 k perl-HTTP-Tiny noarch 0.082-1.fc36 updates 55 k perl-IO x86_64 1.46-486.fc36 fedora 92 k perl-IPC-Open3 noarch 1.21-486.fc36 fedora 28 k perl-MIME-Base64 x86_64 3.16-479.fc36 fedora 30 k perl-POSIX x86_64 1.97-486.fc36 fedora 102 k perl-PathTools x86_64 3.80-479.fc36 fedora 85 k perl-Pod-Escapes noarch 1:1.07-479.fc36 fedora 20 k perl-Pod-Perldoc noarch 3.28.01-480.fc36 fedora 83 k perl-Pod-Simple noarch 1:3.43-3.fc36 fedora 215 k perl-Pod-Usage noarch 4:2.01-479.fc36 fedora 40 k perl-Scalar-List-Utils x86_64 5:1.63-489.fc36 updates 72 k perl-SelectSaver noarch 1.02-486.fc36 fedora 17 k perl-Socket x86_64 4:2.036-1.fc36 updates 55 k perl-Storable x86_64 1:3.25-2.fc36 fedora 96 k perl-Symbol noarch 1.09-486.fc36 fedora 19 k perl-Term-ANSIColor noarch 5.01-480.fc36 fedora 48 k perl-Term-Cap noarch 1.17-479.fc36 fedora 22 k perl-Text-ParseWords noarch 3.31-1.fc36 updates 16 k perl-Text-Tabs+Wrap noarch 2021.0814-2.fc36 fedora 22 k perl-Text-Unidecode noarch 1.30-17.fc36 fedora 139 k perl-Time-Local noarch 2:1.300-479.fc36 fedora 34 k perl-XML-Parser x86_64 2.46-10.fc36 fedora 229 k perl-XML-XPath noarch 1.44-12.fc36 fedora 80 k perl-constant noarch 1.33-480.fc36 fedora 23 k perl-encoding x86_64 4:3.00-485.fc36 updates 63 k perl-if noarch 0.60.900-486.fc36 fedora 19 k perl-interpreter x86_64 4:5.34.1-486.fc36 fedora 76 k perl-libs x86_64 4:5.34.1-486.fc36 fedora 2.1 M perl-mro x86_64 1.25-486.fc36 fedora 33 k perl-open noarch 1.12-486.fc36 fedora 21 k perl-overload noarch 1.33-486.fc36 fedora 50 k perl-overloading noarch 0.02-486.fc36 fedora 18 k perl-parent noarch 1:0.238-479.fc36 fedora 14 k perl-podlators noarch 1:4.14-479.fc36 fedora 112 k perl-subs noarch 1.04-486.fc36 fedora 17 k perl-vars noarch 1.05-486.fc36 fedora 18 k texlive-base x86_64 9:20210325-47.fc36 fedora 2.3 M texlive-cm noarch 9:svn57963-55.fc36 fedora 290 k texlive-epstopdf noarch 9:20210325-47.fc36 fedora 31 k texlive-epstopdf-pkg noarch 9:svn53546-55.fc36 fedora 365 k texlive-etex noarch 9:svn56291-55.fc36 fedora 29 k texlive-graphics-def noarch 9:svn58539-55.fc36 fedora 30 k texlive-gsftopk x86_64 9:20210325-47.fc36 fedora 36 k texlive-hyph-utf8 noarch 9:svn58619-55.fc36 fedora 30 k texlive-hyphen-base noarch 9:svn58630-55.fc36 fedora 35 k texlive-knuth-lib noarch 9:svn57963-55.fc36 fedora 47 k texlive-kpathsea x86_64 9:20210325-47.fc36 fedora 1.1 M texlive-lib x86_64 9:20210325-47.fc36 fedora 490 k texlive-luatex x86_64 9:20210325-47.fc36 fedora 3.8 M texlive-plain noarch 9:svn57963-55.fc36 fedora 45 k texlive-tex-ini-files noarch 9:svn40533-55.fc36 fedora 16 k texlive-texlive-scripts noarch 9:20210325-47.fc36 fedora 107 k texlive-texlive.infra noarch 9:20210325-47.fc36 fedora 283 k texlive-unicode-data noarch 9:svn56768-55.fc36 fedora 357 k zziplib x86_64 0.13.72-1.fc36 fedora 86 k
Transaction Summary =============================================================================================== Install 79 Packages
Total size: 20 M Total download size: 12 M Installed size: 69 M
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #5 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: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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* SIL Open Font License 1.1 with Reserved Font Name", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1", "SIL Open Font License 1.0". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/libertinus-fonts/2149626-libertinus- fonts/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/fonts/libertinus- fonts(texlive-libertinus-fonts) [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: 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 40960 bytes in 5 files. [ ]: 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 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %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]: 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: libertinus-fonts-7.040-1.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/tmpqcot4ujo')] checks: 31, packages: 1
libertinus-fonts.spec:70: W: setup-not-quiet libertinus-fonts.spec:14: W: macro-in-comment %build 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/alerque/libertinus/releases/download/v7.040/Libertinus-7.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7fe9f022722d1c1cc67dc2c28a110b3bb55bae3575196160d2422c89333b3850 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7fe9f022722d1c1cc67dc2c28a110b3bb55bae3575196160d2422c89333b3850
Requires --------
Provides --------
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2149626 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, fonts Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Perl, Ocaml, C/C++, Java, Ruby, Haskell, R, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) Fonts are installed, but not listed as being provided. b) Not essential, but if you can build from source, that is preferred when the source is available: https://github.com/alerque/libertinus c) Might LaTeX be able to use your package as a dependency to minimize duplication? Maybe there is some issue in how the fonts in LaTeX are packaged?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #6 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- I made some minor changes, the URLs are the same.
Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=95078011
a) Fonts are installed, but not listed as being provided.
The previus koji builds have them included, not sure if this is might be a bug in the fedora-review?
Provides: config(libertinus-fonts) = 7.040-1.fc38 font(libertinuskeyboard) font(libertinusmath) font(libertinusmono) font(libertinussans) font(libertinusserif) font(libertinusserifdisplay) font(libertinusserifinitials) font(libertinusserifsemibold) font(libertinusserifsemibolditalic) libertinus-fonts = 7.040-1.fc38 metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.libertinus-fonts.metainfo.xml)
My local Fedora 36 build: $ rpm -q --requires /home/jonny/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/libertinus-fonts-7.040-1.fc36.noarch.rpm config(libertinus-fonts) = 7.040-1.fc36 fontpackages-filesystem rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsZstd) <= 5.4.18-1
$ rpm -q --provides /home/jonny/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/libertinus-fonts-7.040-1.fc36.noarch.rpm config(libertinus-fonts) = 7.040-1.fc36 font(libertinuskeyboard) font(libertinusmath) font(libertinusmono) font(libertinussans) font(libertinusserif) font(libertinusserifdisplay) font(libertinusserifinitials) font(libertinusserifsemibold) font(libertinusserifsemibolditalic) libertinus-fonts = 7.040-1.fc36 metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.libertinus-fonts.metainfo.xml)
b) Not essential, but if you can build from source, that is preferred when the source is available: https://github.com/alerque/libertinus
Upstream uses fontship to build that is not included in Fedora.
c) Might LaTeX be able to use your package as a dependency to minimize duplication? Maybe there is some issue in how the fonts in LaTeX are packaged?
I think once this font is included in the Fedora repository, then it would be natural for the texlive package to use this package instead of re-packaging the CTAN package. I will inform the package maintainers of texlive.
libertinus-fonts.spec:70: W: setup-not-quiet libertinus-fonts.spec:14: W: macro-in-comment %build
Fixed rpmlint warnings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |spotrh@gmail.com, | |than@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(spotrh@gmail.com) | |needinfo?(than@redhat.com)
--- Comment #7 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Maintainers of texlive and it subpackage texlive-libertinus-fonts; How will this package affect texlive? Would it be possible to re-use this package instead of bundling the fonts in texlive-libertinus-fonts?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Same files are in the LaTeX package https://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/fonts/libertinus-fonts
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Conflicts/
Checking the spec file for texlive suggests that it maybe good to package fonts without requiring texlive-base and texlive-kpathsea
%package libertinus-fonts Summary: The Libertinus font family Version: svn57948 License: OFL Requires: texlive-base texlive-kpathsea
%description libertinus-fonts This is a fork of the Linux Libertine and Linux Biolinum fonts that started as an OpenType math companion of the Libertine font family, but grown as a full fork to address some of the bugs in the fonts. The family consists of: Libertinus Serif: forked from Linux Libertine. Libertinus Sans: forked from Linux Biolinum. Libertinus Mono: forked from Linux Libertine Mono. Libertinus Math: an OpenType math font for use in OpenType math-capable applications like LuaTeX, XeTeX or MS Word 2007+.
%files libertinus-fonts %license ofl.txt %doc %{_texdir}/texmf-dist/doc/fonts/libertinus-fonts %{_datadir}/fonts/libertinus-fonts %{_datadir}/appdata/libertinus-fonts.metainfo.xml %{_texdir}/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/libertinus-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
Than Ngo than@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(than@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #9 from Than Ngo than@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #7)
Maintainers of texlive and it subpackage texlive-libertinus-fonts; How will this package affect texlive? Would it be possible to re-use this package instead of bundling the fonts in texlive-libertinus-fonts?
i have checked and believe that it's possible to reuse this package because the texlive-libertinus-fonts are same files.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- The libertinus-fonts spec file will then need to be updated to indicate it obsoletes texlive-libertinus-fonts version upto and including the current one, and the texlive-libertinus-fonts spec file updated to require libertinus-fonts.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #11 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #10)
The libertinus-fonts spec file will then need to be updated to indicate it obsoletes texlive-libertinus-fonts version upto and including the current one, and the texlive-libertinus-fonts spec file updated to require libertinus-fonts.
I am not completely sure what is the correct upgrade path.
For now I assume that libertinus-fonts should include the current version of texlive-libertinus-fonts like this:
Conflicts: texlive-libertinus-fonts <= 9:svn57948-55
The next release of texlive-libertinus-fonts then have: Requires: libertinus-fonts
All files required by texlive is replaced by symlinks to the libertinus-fonts content.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #12 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Updated spec+srpm with Conflicts: texlive-libertinus-fonts <= 9:svn57948-55
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
Tom "spot" Callaway spotrh@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(spotrh@gmail.com) |
--- Comment #13 from Tom "spot" Callaway spotrh@gmail.com --- No no, don't do that. Just package it up normally and I'll make the texlive subpackage just be a pile of symlinks with a dependency on libertinus-fonts. Texlive needs to be able to find fonts within it's weird little directory tree structure.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #14 from Tom "spot" Callaway spotrh@gmail.com --- We want to avoid use of Conflicts here, because these two packages can and should be simultaneously installed (at least in the texlive use case).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #15 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", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1 with Reserved Font Name", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1", "SIL Open Font License 1.0". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/2149626-libertinus-fonts/licensecheck.txt [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/fonts/libertinus- fonts(texlive-libertinus-fonts) [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. [?]: 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 40960 bytes in 5 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [-]: 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: libertinus-fonts-7.040-1.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/tmp5rn8z3wu')] checks: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/alerque/libertinus/releases/download/v7.040/Libertinus-7.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7fe9f022722d1c1cc67dc2c28a110b3bb55bae3575196160d2422c89333b3850 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7fe9f022722d1c1cc67dc2c28a110b3bb55bae3575196160d2422c89333b3850
Requires --------
Provides --------
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2149626 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: fonts, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, C/C++, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, Perl, Java, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments:
a) Ok. Remove conflicts, sorry for that.
b) get an error Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present.
but the spec file seems ok. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/ Any idea why this occurs?
c) Using otfinfo - from the package texlive-lcdftypetools , the foundry is listed as QUE which from https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/vendors/ is alerque Can you add %global foundry alerque to the spec file? This will also ensure there is no directory conflict as alerque-libertinus-fonts will be used and will allow symlinking later for texlive.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #16 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- (In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #14)
We want to avoid use of Conflicts here, because these two packages can and should be simultaneously installed (at least in the texlive use case).
Great, I will remove the Conflicts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #17 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com ---
Comments:
a) Ok. Remove conflicts, sorry for that.
b) get an error Issues: =======
- Dist tag is present.
but the spec file seems ok. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/ Any idea why this occurs?
Maybe a missing question-mark? I see that I have used %{dist} instead of the correct %{?dist}
c) Using otfinfo - from the package texlive-lcdftypetools , the foundry is listed as QUE which from https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/typography/vendors/ is alerque Can you add %global foundry alerque to the spec file? This will also ensure there is no directory conflict as alerque-libertinus-fonts will be used and will allow symlinking later for texlive.
I think I started with %global foundry alerque, but removed it later since it was optional and the maintainer does not "market" the font under any foundery.
The author is maintaining the Arch Linux packages https://github.com/archlinux/svntogit-community/blob/46f02052af3061be069a457... and there are no signs of using nothing else than libertinus in the naming and metadata.
I could ask upstream if they have any preference?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(caleb@alerque.com | |)
--- Comment #18 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Caleb Maclennan: Do you have any preference with foundry for this package? See comment c) on comment 15
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
Caleb Maclennan caleb@alerque.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(caleb@alerque.com | |) |
--- Comment #19 from Caleb Maclennan caleb@alerque.com --- The suggestion from c/15 seems fine to me.
```spec %global foundry alerque ```
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #20 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Updated the spec file: * Removed Conflicts * Use %{?dist} instead of %{dist} * Added %global foundry alerque
The %global foundry alerque cased the rpm+srpm to change name to alerque-libertinus-fonts, so I also changed the spec file to reflect this.
New URLS:
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/alerque-libertinus-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/alerque-libertinus-fonts-7.040-1.fc36.src.rpm
Files in the RPM: /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-alerque-libertinus-fonts.conf /usr/share/doc/alerque-libertinus-fonts /usr/share/doc/alerque-libertinus-fonts/AUTHORS.txt /usr/share/doc/alerque-libertinus-fonts/CONTRIBUTING.md /usr/share/doc/alerque-libertinus-fonts/CONTRIBUTORS.txt /usr/share/doc/alerque-libertinus-fonts/FONTLOG.txt /usr/share/doc/alerque-libertinus-fonts/README.md /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/60-alerque-libertinus-fonts.conf /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts/LibertinusKeyboard-Regular.otf /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts/LibertinusMath-Regular.otf /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts/LibertinusMono-Regular.otf /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts/LibertinusSans-Bold.otf /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts/LibertinusSans-Italic.otf /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts/LibertinusSans-Regular.otf /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts/LibertinusSerif-Bold.otf /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts/LibertinusSerif-BoldItalic.otf /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts/LibertinusSerif-Italic.otf /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts/LibertinusSerif-Regular.otf /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts/LibertinusSerif-Semibold.otf /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts/LibertinusSerif-SemiboldItalic.otf /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts/LibertinusSerifDisplay-Regular.otf /usr/share/fonts/alerque-libertinus-fonts/LibertinusSerifInitials-Regular.otf /usr/share/licenses/alerque-libertinus-fonts /usr/share/licenses/alerque-libertinus-fonts/OFL.txt /usr/share/metainfo/org.fedoraproject.alerque-libertinus-fonts.metainfo.xml
Provides: alerque-libertinus-fonts = 7.040-1.fc36 config(alerque-libertinus-fonts) = 7.040-1.fc36 font(libertinuskeyboard) font(libertinusmath) font(libertinusmono) font(libertinussans) font(libertinusserif) font(libertinusserifdisplay) font(libertinusserifinitials) font(libertinusserifsemibold) font(libertinusserifsemibolditalic) metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.alerque-libertinus-fonts.metainfo.xml)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #21 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #22 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #21)
Thanks. Approved.
Thanks for the review!
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/50018
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
--- Comment #23 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/alerque-libertinus-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a74a695de3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a74a695de3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-ae17210666 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-ae17210666 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ae17210666
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=2149626
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a74a695de3 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-a74a695de3 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-a74a695de3
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=2149626
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-01-04 11:19:21
--- Comment #27 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Have pushed updates for Fedora 36 and later
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149626
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |ERRATA
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-ae17210666 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=2149626
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-a74a695de3 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