[Bug 2165453] New: Review Request: google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts - Google Noto Sans CJK Variable Fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
Bug ID: 2165453 Summary: Review Request: google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts - Google Noto Sans CJK Variable Fonts Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pwu@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts/noto-cjk-v3/google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts... SRPM URL: https://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts/noto-cjk-v3/google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts... Description: Google Noto Sans CJK Variable Fonts Fedora Account System Username:pwu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
Peng Wu pwu@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |panemade@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5359744 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
--- Comment #2 from Peng Wu pwu@redhat.com --- Please review the updated package, thanks!
Spec URL: https://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts/noto-cjk-v3/google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts... SRPM URL: https://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts/noto-cjk-v3/google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1941973 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1941973&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5359744 to 5427910
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5427910 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
--- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- 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", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1", "SIL Open Font License 1.1". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/test/2165453-google-noto- sans-cjk-vf-fonts/licensecheck.txt [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. [!]: 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. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== 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. [?]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define obsoletes_pkg()%define subpkgname %1Obsoletes: %{subpkgname} < %{obsoletes_version}Provides: %{subpkgname} = %{obsoletes_version}, %define obsoletes_sans()%define langname %1%obsoletes_pkg google-noto-sans- cjk-%{langname}-fonts%obsoletes_pkg google-noto- sans-%{langname}-fonts%obsoletes_pkg google-noto-sans-mono- cjk-%{langname}-fonts [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.
===== 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: google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts-2.004-1.fc38.noarch.rpm google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts-2.004-1.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/tmpcwrq7m25')] checks: 31, packages: 2
google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation ==================================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 3.0 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: 1
google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/googlefonts/noto-cjk/releases/download/Sans2.004/01_NotoS... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d5e33aebad9f8a0c0896a4a29199ef85ca966134db164426c74e83e6f13c43cd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d5e33aebad9f8a0c0896a4a29199ef85ca966134db164426c74e83e6f13c43cd
Requires -------- google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem
Provides -------- google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts: config(google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts) font(notosanscjkhk) font(notosanscjkjp) font(notosanscjkkr) font(notosanscjksc) font(notosanscjktc) font(notosansmonocjkhk) font(notosansmonocjkjp) font(notosansmonocjkkr) font(notosansmonocjksc) font(notosansmonocjktc) google-noto-cjk-fonts google-noto-cjk-fonts-common google-noto-sans-cjk-hk-fonts google-noto-sans-cjk-jp-fonts google-noto-sans-cjk-kr-fonts google-noto-sans-cjk-sc-fonts google-noto-sans-cjk-tc-fonts google-noto-sans-cjk-ttc-fonts google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts google-noto-sans-hk-fonts google-noto-sans-jp-fonts google-noto-sans-kr-fonts google-noto-sans-mono-cjk-hk-fonts google-noto-sans-mono-cjk-jp-fonts google-noto-sans-mono-cjk-kr-fonts google-noto-sans-mono-cjk-sc-fonts google-noto-sans-mono-cjk-tc-fonts google-noto-sans-sc-fonts google-noto-sans-tc-fonts metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts.metainfo.xml)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
--- Comment #6 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- Suggestion: 1) As per Fedora packaging guidelines this package SPEC does not follow the Provides: tag. It should be written like Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR Obsoletes: oldpackagename < $obsEVR
You should not use Obsoleted package n-v-r to Provides: it should be providing package n-v-r.
2) also obsoletes_version is wrong. You should put complete n-v-r in Obsoletes: line as well, thus you should be writing %global obsoletes_epoch_version_release 0:20220320-8
%global obsoletes_pkg()\ %define subpkgname %1\ Obsoletes: %{subpkgname} < %{obsoletes_epoch_version_release}\ Provides: %{subpkgname} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}\
3) You can change %define obsoletes_pkg()\ to %global obsoletes_pkg()\
%define obsoletes_sans()\ to %global obsoletes_sans()\
4) When I tried to open ttc files in fontforge, I am unable to open it. Is this expected?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
--- Comment #7 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- just realized I made typo in previous comment. Read as %global obsoletes_epoch_version_release 0:20201206-8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
--- Comment #8 from Peng Wu pwu@redhat.com --- I think the upstream font can't be opened by fontforge.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
--- Comment #9 from Peng Wu pwu@redhat.com --- Please review the updated package, thanks!
Spec URL: https://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts/noto-cjk-v3/google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts... SRPM URL: https://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts/noto-cjk-v3/google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
--- Comment #10 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1942657 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1942657&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 5427910 to 5496379
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- Updated package looks good now.
APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
--- Comment #13 from Peng Wu pwu@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165453
Peng Wu pwu@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-02-10 03:36:38
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com