[Bug 1371635] New: Review Request: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts - A set of OpenType fonts designed to complement Source Sans Pro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635
Bug ID: 1371635 Summary: Review Request: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts - A set of OpenType fonts designed to complement Source Sans Pro Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: suraia@ikkoku.de QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts/adobe-source-serif-pr... SRPM URL: https://ikkoku.de/~suraia/adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts/adobe-source-serif-pr...
Description: Source Serif Pro is a set of OpenType fonts to complement the Source Sans Pro family.
Fedora Account System Username: suraia
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635
Michael Kuhn suraia@ikkoku.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) CC| |relrod@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Michael Kuhn suraia@ikkoku.de --- *** Bug 1099033 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635
Michael Kuhn suraia@ikkoku.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449 [Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response should be blocking this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |panemade@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |panemade@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com ---
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Suggestions: 1) You can write your own metainfo or at least your own copyright on that file. 2) $ appstream-util validate source-serif-pro.metainfo.xml source-serif-pro.metainfo.xml: FAILED: • tag-missing : <update_contact> is not present • tag-missing : <url> is not present Validation of files failed
You need to fix this. While searching an example for this fix here, I found this first quick example http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/gdouros-avdira-fonts.git/plain/gdour...
3) Its actually good if you can add in spec this %check appstream-util validate-relax --nonet \ %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/appdata/%{fontname}.metainfo.xml
Fix above issues before importing this package.
===== 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". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1371635-adobe-source-serif-pro- 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 [x]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. Note: ttname analyze results in fonts/ttname.log.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts-1.017-1.fc26.noarch.rpm adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts-1.017-1.fc26.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem
Provides -------- adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts: adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts config(adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts) font(:lang=aa) font(:lang=an) font(:lang=ay) font(:lang=bi) font(:lang=br) font(:lang=bs) font(:lang=ca) font(:lang=ch) font(:lang=co) font(:lang=crh) font(:lang=cs) font(:lang=csb) font(:lang=da) font(:lang=de) font(:lang=en) font(:lang=es) font(:lang=et) font(:lang=eu) font(:lang=fi) font(:lang=fil) font(:lang=fj) font(:lang=fo) font(:lang=fr) font(:lang=fur) font(:lang=fy) font(:lang=gd) font(:lang=gl) font(:lang=gv) font(:lang=haw) font(:lang=ho) font(:lang=hr) font(:lang=hsb) font(:lang=ht) font(:lang=hu) font(:lang=ia) font(:lang=id) font(:lang=ie) font(:lang=io) font(:lang=is) font(:lang=it) font(:lang=jv) font(:lang=kj) font(:lang=ku-tr) font(:lang=kwm) font(:lang=lb) font(:lang=li) font(:lang=lt) font(:lang=lv) font(:lang=mg) font(:lang=mh) font(:lang=ms) font(:lang=nb) font(:lang=nds) font(:lang=ng) font(:lang=nl) font(:lang=nn) font(:lang=no) font(:lang=nr) font(:lang=nso) font(:lang=oc) font(:lang=om) font(:lang=pap-an) font(:lang=pap-aw) font(:lang=pl) font(:lang=pt) font(:lang=rm) font(:lang=rn) font(:lang=ro) font(:lang=rw) font(:lang=sc) font(:lang=sg) font(:lang=sk) font(:lang=sl) font(:lang=sm) font(:lang=sma) font(:lang=smj) font(:lang=sn) font(:lang=so) font(:lang=sq) font(:lang=ss) font(:lang=st) font(:lang=su) font(:lang=sv) font(:lang=sw) font(:lang=tk) font(:lang=tl) font(:lang=tn) font(:lang=to) font(:lang=tr) font(:lang=ts) font(:lang=ty) font(:lang=uz) font(:lang=vo) font(:lang=vot) font(:lang=wa) font(:lang=wen) font(:lang=xh) font(:lang=yap) font(:lang=za) font(:lang=zu) font(sourceserifpro) font(sourceserifproblack) font(sourceserifproextralight) font(sourceserifprolight) font(sourceserifprosemibold)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-serif-pro/archive/1.017R.tar.gz#/Sourc... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2f4f75b53983a399472e6972829de4e9a4aac76ad70bd111688e50c97d240212 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2f4f75b53983a399472e6972829de4e9a4aac76ad70bd111688e50c97d240212
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1371635 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635
--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/adobe-source-serif-pro-fo...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts-1.017-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-982902f909
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts-1.017-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0aa7a43b4b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts-1.017-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0aa7a43b4b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts-1.017-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-982902f909
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts-1.017-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-09-08 17:15:48
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1371635
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- adobe-source-serif-pro-fonts-1.017-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla