https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180241
Bug ID: 2180241 Summary: Review Request: edwin-fonts - A text font for musical scores 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/edwin-fonts/edwin-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/edwin-fonts/edwin-fonts-0.54-1.fc39.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: In 1999-2000, URW++ Design and Development GmbH released Type 1 implementations of the Core 35 fonts under the GNU General Public License (GPL) and the Aladdin Ghostscript Free Public License (AFPL). In 2009, URW++ additionally released the same fonts under the LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL).
In 2016, URW++ released a major Version 2.0 upgrade to the Core 35 fonts. This version is an extensive reworking of the original Core 35 fonts, with improved font outlines, and greatly extended character sets, including Cyrillic and Greek. Also, some font names were changed. Version 2.0 was released in Type 1, OpenType-CFF and OpenType-TTF formats. URW++ released Version 2.0 of the fonts under the GNU Affero General Public License, Version 3 (AGPL) with an exemption.
In 2017, URW++ additionally released the same Version 2.0 fonts under the LaTeX Project Public License (LPPL) Version 1.3c, and under the SIL Open Font License (OFL), Version 1.1, without a "Reserved Font Name" clause.
In 2020, MuseScore BVBA released the Edwin font family, a renamed version of the C059 font family (Roman, Italic, Bold & Bold Italic) from the Core 35 font set. This was done in order to make modifications that suit the requirements of the open source notation software, MuseScore. It is released under the under the SIL Open Font License (OFL) only.
See https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/MuseScore4/ for builds of this and related packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180241
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=2180241
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180241
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- 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". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/edwin-fonts/2180241-edwin- 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 2 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]: 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: 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 [!]: 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: edwin-fonts-0.54-1.fc38.noarch.rpm edwin-fonts-0.54-1.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/tmp0e9f6vpz')] checks: 31, packages: 2
============ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 2.2 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
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/MuseScoreFonts/Edwin/archive/v0.54/Edwin-0.54.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 17a073c27aec6842de81da3a05d8eed4e1be448f732a79f8b48012477abacd89 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 17a073c27aec6842de81da3a05d8eed4e1be448f732a79f8b48012477abacd89
Requires -------- edwin-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(edwin-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem
Provides -------- edwin-fonts: config(edwin-fonts) edwin-fonts font(edwin) metainfo() metainfo(org.musescore.edwin-fonts.metainfo.xml) mscore-edwin-fonts
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2180241 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, fonts Disabled plugins: Haskell, Python, Java, C/C++, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, R, Ruby, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Comments: a) Would be great if there is a foundry, but not essential. Approved.
Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2227573 would be appreciated if time allows
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180241
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thank you for the review! I don't know what the foundry name would be, frankly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180241
--- 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/edwin-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2180241
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=2180241
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-08-31 14:58:35
--- 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=2180241
--- 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=2180241
--- 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=2180241
--- 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=2180241
--- 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