https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180242
Bug ID: 2180242 Summary: Review Request: leland-fonts - SMuFL-compliant OpenType music font Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganjerry@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/leland-fonts/leland-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/leland-fonts/leland-fonts-0.77-1.fc39.src.rp... Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: The Leland music fonts (Leland & Leland Text) were initially developed for the MuseScore (https://www.musescore.org) music composition software.
Leland is compliant with Standard Music Font Layout (SMuFL), which provides a standard way of mapping the thousands of musical symbols required by conventional music notation into the Private Use Area in Unicode's Basic Multilingual Plane for a single (format-independent) font.
The font is named after Leland Smith, creator of the SCORE music notation software.
See https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/MuseScore4/ for builds of this and related packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180242
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2180243
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180243 [Bug 2180243] Review Request: musescore - Music Composition & Notation Software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180242
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180242
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #1 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "SIL Open Font License", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/leland-fonts/2180242-leland- fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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 40960 bytes in 4 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: [-]: 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: leland-fonts-0.77-1.fc38.noarch.rpm leland-text-fonts-0.77-1.fc38.noarch.rpm leland-fonts-all-0.77-1.fc38.noarch.rpm leland-fonts-0.77-1.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/tmpm__v4cqp')] checks: 31, packages: 4
leland-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.9 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 31, packages: 3
leland-fonts-all.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/MuseScoreFonts/Leland/archive/v0.77/Leland-0.77.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3c7b80220638f380c478468a935bb9f19f2b9e8c9874f32a93476d7c432e3fe0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3c7b80220638f380c478468a935bb9f19f2b9e8c9874f32a93476d7c432e3fe0
Requires -------- leland-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(leland-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem
leland-text-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(leland-text-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem
leland-fonts-all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): leland-fonts leland-text-fonts
Provides -------- leland-fonts: config(leland-fonts) font(leland) leland-fonts metainfo() metainfo(org.musescore.leland-fonts.metainfo.xml)
leland-text-fonts: config(leland-text-fonts) font(lelandtext) leland-text-fonts metainfo() metainfo(org.musescore.leland-text-fonts.metainfo.xml) mscore-leland-fonts
leland-fonts-all: leland-fonts-all
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2180242 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, fonts, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, PHP, C/C++, Ocaml, Perl, Java, Ruby, SugarActivity, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) Would be good if upstream used a registered foundry name, but not strictly required. b) Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180242
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thank you again for the review! It would be nice if they would register a foundry name, yes.
Let me know if you need something else reviewed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180242
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/leland-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180242
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-33edff98fe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-33edff98fe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180242
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-08-31 14:58:38
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-33edff98fe has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180242
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180242
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3
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=2180242
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3
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=2180242
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-4221bf49b3 has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com