[Bug 1079090] New: Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Bug ID: 1079090
           Summary: Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of
                    traditional Arabic fonts
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Spec URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts-1.0-...
Description: This package is a collection of traditional arabic fonts
(including Thuluth, Koufi, Ruqaa..) in addition to other newly designed fonts.
The aim is to provide all the basic fonts an arabic user will need under X
window system. More fonts will be added regularly to the collection to make it
the only font source an arabic user will need to install under the X window
system.
Fedora Account System Username: mohammedisam

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng  ---
1. Are you going to support EPEL5?

If not remove these:

Group:        User Interface/X

BuildRoot:    %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)

rm -fr %{buildroot} in %install

%clean section

%defattr(0664,root,root,0755)

2. install -D man/man1/layla.1 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/layla.1

missing -p option again.

3. install -D info/layla.info %{buildroot}%{_infodir}/layla.info

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #2 from Mohammed Isam  ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1)
> Are you going to support EPEL5?
>
> If not remove these:
>
> Group:		User Interface/X
>
> BuildRoot:	%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
>
> rm -fr %{buildroot} in %install
>
> %clean section
>
> %defattr(0664,root,root,0755)
> install -D man/man1/layla.1 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/layla.1
>
> missing -p option again.
> install -D info/layla.info %{buildroot}%{_infodir}/layla.info

1. No, not supporting EPEL5. Edited the spec file as noted.
2. & 3. Added the -p otion.
Spec file is updated. Please review.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Mohammed Isam  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
                   |                            |ect.org

--- Comment #3 from Mohammed Isam  ---
Added font wiki page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Layla_fonts

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #4 from Mohammed Isam  ---
Spec URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts-1.1-...

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #5 from Mohammed Isam  ---
Any review for this request please?

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #6 from Mohammed Isam  ---
Spec URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts-1.1-...

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #7 from Mohammed Isam  ---
Added a koji scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7159906

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Jonathan Dieter  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Dieter  ---
Are you still interested in having this reviewed?

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #9 from Mohammed Isam  ---
(In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #8)
> Are you still interested in having this reviewed?

Definitely! This will be wonderful. Thanx a lot man.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Carlos Morel-Riquelme  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #10 from Carlos Morel-Riquelme  ---
Hello Mohammed i hope that my info can be useful, well you have this issues

Checking: layla-koufi-fonts-1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-thuluth-fonts-1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-boxer-fonts-1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-ruqaa-fonts-1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-basic-arabic-fonts-1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-fonts-common-1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-fonts-1.1-1.fc22.src.rpm
layla-koufi-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
layla-thuluth-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
layla-boxer-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
layla-ruqaa-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
layla-basic-arabic-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
layla-fonts-common.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/man/man1/layla.1.gz
layla-fonts-common.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/info/layla.info.gz
layla-fonts.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) arabic -> Arabic
layla-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US arabic -> Arabic
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

The W: no-documentation warning is because the GPL license is missing, please
create a GPL.txt file and later copy the license into this.
Now, add the GPL+.txt to the layla-fonts folder and later compress this.

For solved the :W spelling-error please change "arabic" to "Arabic" in your
Summary and the %description in the spec file.

About the W: spurious-executable warning please read this
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Rpmlint#spurious-executable-perm

I hope my english can be understandable.

Regards from Chile

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #11 from Mohammed Isam  ---
Thanx a lot Carlos
I corrected the no-documentation warnings (I added %files sections for each
package), and the exec problem, and the arabic is now Arabic!
Thanx

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #12 from Mohammed Isam  ---
Spec URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts-1.2-...

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #13 from Carlos Morel-Riquelme  ---
Mohammed, please check you spec file

look this:
Version: 1.1

change to:
Version: 1.2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

look this:

%changelog
* Wed Jul 16 2014 Mohammed Isam  1.1-1
- Updated info and manpages

add to changelog:

%changelog
* Fri Feb 06 2015 Mohammed Isam  1.2-1
- Fix and update the spec file

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you see your *.srpm have 1.2 version and the spec file have 1.1 version.

Regards :)

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Dieter  ---
Mohammad, the problem is that the spec link still points to the old spec file. 
I've downloaded the srpm and run some preliminary checks.  Thanks for fixing
the items Carlos listed, but you also have %files being listed twice for each
subpackage because %_font_pkg automatically creates a %files section for a
font.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #15 from Mohammed Isam  ---
(In reply to Carlos Morel-Riquelme from comment #13)
> Mohammed, please check you spec file
>
> look this:
> Version: 1.1
>
> change to:
> Version: 1.2

Hi Carlos, this is my mistake. I uploaded the new spec file, but google didn't
update the old file, instead it saved a new copy and reserved the old one. I
fixed it. The link points to the correct file now.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #16 from Mohammed Isam  ---
(In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #14)
> Mohammad, the problem is that the spec link still points to the old spec
> file.  I've downloaded the srpm and run some preliminary checks.  Thanks for
> fixing the items Carlos listed, but you also have %files being listed twice
> for each subpackage because %_font_pkg automatically creates a %files
> section for a font.

Hi Jonathan
I am a little perplexed here. If I remove the %files sections, rpmbuild
complains about finding (Installed but unpackaged files) and terminates in
error. Still, it is working with the current spec file, how is it possible?
Furthermore, when I run (rpm -qpl) on the font packages, it lists the files
correctly (with no repeated files). Should I remove the %files sections from my
spec? If yes, how to solve the rpmbuild panic error?

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #17 from Carlos Morel-Riquelme  ---
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: layla-koufi-fonts-1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-thuluth-fonts-1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-boxer-fonts-1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-ruqaa-fonts-1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-basic-arabic-fonts-1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-fonts-common-1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-fonts-1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm
layla-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 108: second %files
layla-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 114: second %files
layla-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 120: second %files
layla-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 126: second %files
layla-fonts.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 132: second %files
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 0 warnings.

it's strange because in the past this errors don't exists, please compare the
old spec file with the new spec file. Other idea is that is errors have
relation with that johathan says.

Regards

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #18 from Jonathan Dieter  ---
(In reply to Mohammed Isam from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #14)
> > Mohammad, the problem is that the spec link still points to the old spec
> > file.  I've downloaded the srpm and run some preliminary checks.  Thanks for
> > fixing the items Carlos listed, but you also have %files being listed twice
> > for each subpackage because %_font_pkg automatically creates a %files
> > section for a font.
>
> Hi Jonathan
> I am a little perplexed here. If I remove the %files sections, rpmbuild
> complains about finding (Installed but unpackaged files) and terminates in
> error. Still, it is working with the current spec file, how is it possible?
> Furthermore, when I run (rpm -qpl) on the font packages, it lists the files
> correctly (with no repeated files). Should I remove the %files sections from
> my spec? If yes, how to solve the rpmbuild panic error?

The problem is that the manpages aren't packaged by %_font_pkg but are listed
in the %files sections.  I would suggest dropping both the man and info pages
as they're really not necessary for a font.  I checked a couple of other Fedora
fonts and they don't contain man or info pages.

If you remove the man and info pages, then you can also remove all of the
%files sections except -common

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #19 from Mohammed Isam  ---
(In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #18)
> The problem is that the manpages aren't packaged by %_font_pkg but are
> listed in the %files sections.  I would suggest dropping both the man and
> info pages as they're really not necessary for a font.  I checked a couple
> of other Fedora fonts and they don't contain man or info pages.
>
> If you remove the man and info pages, then you can also remove all of the
> %files sections except -common

Ok. I removed the man pages & the info files. Links are updated accordingly.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #20 from Mohammed Isam  ---
Spec URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts-1.3-...

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #21 from Mohammed Isam  ---
NB: I had to bump the NVR as I removed the info & mans from the source pkg.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #22 from Carlos Morel-Riquelme  ---
Hi mohammed 
The fedora-review give me again the warning of documentation

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: layla-koufi-fonts-1.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-thuluth-fonts-1.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-boxer-fonts-1.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-ruqaa-fonts-1.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-basic-arabic-fonts-1.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-fonts-common-1.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          layla-fonts-1.3-1.fc22.src.rpm
layla-koufi-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
layla-thuluth-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
layla-boxer-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
layla-ruqaa-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
layla-basic-arabic-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the tree of the layla-fonts in the srpm

[empateinfinito@localhost layla-fonts-1.3]$ tree
.
├── Authors
├── ChangeLog
├── confs
│   ├── 67-layla-BasicArabic.conf
│   ├── 67-layla-Boxer.conf
│   ├── 67-layla-Koufi.conf
│   ├── 67-layla-Ruqaa.conf
│   └── 67-layla-Thuluth.conf
├── COPYING
├── GPL.txt
├── LaylaBasicArabic.ttf
├── LaylaBoxer.ttf
├── layla-fonts-1.3.tar.gz
├── LaylaKoufi.ttf
├── LaylaRuqaa.ttf
├── LaylaThuluth.ttf
└── README

1 directory, 16 files
[empateinfinito@localhost layla-fonts-1.3]$

1) It's strange because the documentation is here :/

2) layla-fonts-1.3.tar.gz is void ?

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Dieter  ---
(In reply to Carlos Morel-Riquelme from comment #22)
> Hi mohammed 
> The fedora-review give me again the warning of documentation

<snip>
> It's strange because the documentation is here :/
>
> layla-fonts-1.3.tar.gz is void ?

The documentation is there for the -common subpackage, it just doesn't get
included for each individual font.  This follows the precedent set by other
fonts in Fedora.

$ rpm -ql liberation-fonts-common-1.07.4-4.fc21.noarch
/etc/X11/fontpath.d/liberation-fonts
/usr/share/appdata/liberation.metainfo.xml
/usr/share/doc/liberation-fonts-common
/usr/share/doc/liberation-fonts-common/AUTHORS
/usr/share/doc/liberation-fonts-common/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/liberation-fonts-common/ChangeLog
/usr/share/doc/liberation-fonts-common/License.txt
/usr/share/doc/liberation-fonts-common/README
/usr/share/doc/liberation-fonts-common/TODO
/usr/share/fonts/liberation
/usr/share/fonts/liberation/fonts.dir
/usr/share/fonts/liberation/fonts.scale

$ rpm -ql liberation-mono-fonts-1.07.4-4.fc21.noarch
/etc/fonts/conf.d/59-liberation-mono.conf
/usr/share/appdata/liberation-mono.metainfo.xml
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/59-liberation-mono.conf
/usr/share/fonts/liberation
/usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationMono-Bold.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationMono-BoldItalic.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationMono-Italic.ttf
/usr/share/fonts/liberation/LiberationMono-Regular.ttf

Note that the -mono subpackage in the Liberation fonts has no documentation. 
This warning can be ignored.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #24 from Jonathan Dieter  ---
Carlos, are you wanting to do this review?  If not, I'll go ahead and do the
full review.  If you're looking for experience in reviewing packages, I'll
happily let you take the lead on this and just look over your shoulder.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #25 from Carlos Morel-Riquelme  ---
Hello jonathan please take the control, i'm a newbie in reviews so i've will
very happy to learn about this review and also of your knowledge.

my best regards from Chile :)

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #26 from Mohammed Isam  ---
(In reply to Carlos Morel-Riquelme from comment #25)
> Hello jonathan please take the control, i'm a newbie in reviews so i've will
> very happy to learn about this review and also of your knowledge.
>
> my best regards from Chile :)

Many thanx 4 u both. I appreciate it.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #27 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
Carlos,
  We don't want to duplicate documentation(license) files when one of the
sub-package installs it and base (or any other) package needs this sub-package.
In this case we get only one copy of documentation files from sub-package.

See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Lice...

So, when any of layla-*-fonts sub-package we install, as we have written 
Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release}
layla-common will also get installed which will give us documentation files.

We can then ignore rpmlint message "no-documentation".

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #28 from Mohammed Isam  ---
(In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #27)
> So, when any of layla-*-fonts sub-package we install, as we have written 
> Requires: %{name}-common = %{version}-%{release}
> layla-common will also get installed which will give us documentation files.
>
> We can then ignore rpmlint message "no-documentation".

Thanx man. It was really confusing in the start but I think this clears
everything up nicely!

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Jonathan Dieter  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #29 from Jonathan Dieter  ---
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: layla-koufi-fonts-1.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          layla-thuluth-fonts-1.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          layla-boxer-fonts-1.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          layla-ruqaa-fonts-1.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          layla-basic-arabic-fonts-1.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          layla-fonts-common-1.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          layla-fonts-1.3-1.fc21.src.rpm
layla-koufi-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
layla-thuluth-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
layla-boxer-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
layla-ruqaa-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
layla-basic-arabic-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #30 from Jonathan Dieter  ---
Requires
--------
layla-basic-arabic-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    config(layla-basic-arabic-fonts)
    layla-fonts-common

layla-koufi-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    config(layla-koufi-fonts)
    layla-fonts-common

layla-ruqaa-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    config(layla-ruqaa-fonts)
    layla-fonts-common

layla-boxer-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    config(layla-boxer-fonts)
    layla-fonts-common

layla-fonts-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

layla-thuluth-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    config(layla-thuluth-fonts)
    layla-fonts-common

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #31 from Jonathan Dieter  ---
Provides
--------
layla-basic-arabic-fonts:
    config(layla-basic-arabic-fonts)
    font(laylabasicarabic)
    layla-basic-arabic-fonts

layla-koufi-fonts:
    config(layla-koufi-fonts)
    font(:lang=ar)
    font(laylakoufi)
    layla-koufi-fonts

layla-ruqaa-fonts:
    config(layla-ruqaa-fonts)
    font(:lang=ar)
    font(laylaruqaa)
    layla-ruqaa-fonts

layla-boxer-fonts:
    config(layla-boxer-fonts)
    font(:lang=ar)
    font(laylaboxer)
    layla-boxer-fonts

layla-fonts-common:
    layla-fonts-common

layla-thuluth-fonts:
    config(layla-thuluth-fonts)
    font(laylathuluth)
    layla-thuluth-fonts

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #32 from Jonathan Dieter  ---
Source checksums
----------------
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts-1.3....
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
0217e7fb48e34057488b267ef17aa91fbb9e97b2bda52e6a8ccf7f06020df422
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
0217e7fb48e34057488b267ef17aa91fbb9e97b2bda52e6a8ccf7f06020df422

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #33 from Jonathan Dieter  ---
Created attachment 989702
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=989702&action=edit
ttname.log

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #34 from Jonathan Dieter  ---
Created attachment 989703
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=989703&action=edit
repo-font-audit.log

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Jonathan Dieter  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #35 from Jonathan Dieter  ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fonts,
     /etc/fonts/conf.d, /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail,
     /usr/share/fontconfig, /etc/fonts

Please add Requires: fontpackages-filesystem to the -common subpackage

[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4

Note: %defattr present but not needed

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

Package license and license included in tarball is GPLv3+, but, according 
     to ttname.log, licenses in ttf files are all SIL OFL 1.1.  Since you're 
     also upstream for this package, I'd recommend sticking with SIL OFL 1.1.

[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 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.
[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]: 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.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see comment #29).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

fonts:
[!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package.

layla-koufi, layla-boxer and layla-thuluth are missing some glyphs in the
     Arabic block.  This is not a blocker, but it would be nice to have this
     fixed.

Note: full results in attached repo-font-audit.log.

[x]: Run ttname on all fonts in package.
     Note: ttname analyze results in attached ttname.log.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #36 from Mohammed Isam  ---
(In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #35)
> Package Review
>
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/fonts,
>      /etc/fonts/conf.d, /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail,
>      /usr/share/fontconfig, /etc/fonts
>  Please add Requires: fontpackages-filesystem to the -common subpackage

I added the Requires line to the spec. I don't need to add the individual
ownerships to the %files directory, do I?
> [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
>  Note: %defattr present but not needed

Not fixed. Honestly I don't get it. My %files section doesn't contain any
%defattr?
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Package license and license included in tarball is GPLv3+, but,
>
> according 
>      to ttname.log, licenses in ttf files are all SIL OFL 1.1.  Since you're 
>      also upstream for this package, I'd recommend sticking with SIL OFL 1.1.

Added the OFL license file (actually, three files according to the OFL
directions). Removed the GPL file and updated the License field in the spec.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #37 from Mohammed Isam  ---
Spec URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam2000/home/projects/layla-fonts-1.4-...

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #38 from Jonathan Dieter  ---
===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.

This is fixed now.

[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4

Apologies!  This was brought up by fedora-review and I took it at its
word.
     I assume that the %_font_pkg macro uses %defattr.  Either way, feel free
to
     ignore this.

[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

Looks good!

===== EXTRA items =====

[!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package.

layla-koufi, layla-boxer and layla-thuluth are missing some glyphs in the
     Arabic block.  This *isn't* a blocker, but if you could keep it in mind
(or
     just tell me that repo-font-audit doesn't know what it's talking about)
that
     would be great.

Note: full results in attached repo-font-audit.log.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Jonathan Dieter  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #39 from Jonathan Dieter  ---
This package is APPROVED!

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #40 from Mohammed Isam  ---
(In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #38)
> [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package.
>  layla-koufi, layla-boxer and layla-thuluth are missing some glyphs in
>
> the Arabic block.  This *isn't* a blocker, but if you could keep it in mind
> (or just tell me that repo-font-audit doesn't know what it's talking about)
> that would be great.

Yep. Some glyphs are missing (Latin ones), but as the font is mainly covering
the Arabic range, all the important glyphs for correct Arabic display are
included. This is going to be fixed in the next releases.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #41 from Mohammed Isam  ---
(In reply to Jonathan Dieter from comment #39)
> This package is APPROVED!

Thanx a lot Jonathan :)

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Mohammed Isam  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #42 from Mohammed Isam  ---
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: layla-fonts
Short Description: A collection of traditional Arabic fonts
Upstream URL: http://sites.google.com/site/mohammedisam/layla-fonts
Owners: mohammedisam
Branches: f20 f21 f22 el5 el6 epel7
InitialCC:

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Jon Ciesla  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #43 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |MODIFIED

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.4-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/layla-fonts-1.4-1.el7

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.4-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/layla-fonts-1.4-1.el6

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc20

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc21

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |ON_QA

--- Comment #48 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version|                            |layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc21
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
        Last Closed|                            |2015-02-23 18:25:45

--- Comment #49 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fixed In Version|layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc21      |layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc20

--- Comment #50 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fixed In Version|layla-fonts-1.4-1.fc20      |layla-fonts-1.4-1.el7

--- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fixed In Version|layla-fonts-1.4-1.el7       |layla-fonts-1.4-1.el6

--- Comment #52 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.4-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #53 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0912c62798

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #54 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-82c7240959

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #55 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 21.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-fe27a4fb6b

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #56 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1ef24fcd30

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #57 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e36655974d

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|CLOSED                      |ON_QA
         Resolution|ERRATA                      |---
           Keywords|                            |Reopened

--- Comment #58 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update layla-fonts'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-fe27a4fb6b

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #59 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update layla-fonts'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-82c7240959

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #60 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update layla-fonts'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0912c62798

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #61 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update layla-fonts'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e36655974d

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #62 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update layla-fonts'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1ef24fcd30

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #63 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED
         Resolution|---                         |ERRATA
        Last Closed|2015-02-23 18:25:45         |2015-10-18 19:48:55

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #64 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #65 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #66 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 1079090] Review Request: layla-fonts - A collection of traditional Arabic fonts

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1079090

--- Comment #67 from Fedora Update System  ---
layla-fonts-1.5-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.