Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: hl-pagul-fonts - Font for Saurashtra script
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
Summary: Review Request: hl-pagul-fonts - Font for Saurashtra script Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pnemade@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: ---
Spec URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/hl-pagul-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/hl-pagul-fonts-1.0-1.fc15.s... Description: A TrueType Font, which allows you to read and write in Saurashtra Script.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mariobl@freenet.de
--- Comment #1 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-04-27 04:50:25 EDT --- The scratch build in Koji fails for this package:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3029124
Anyway, I'm missing a "files" section in the spec file.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
--- Comment #2 from Parag pnemade@redhat.com 2011-04-27 05:09:46 EDT --- Thanks. Updated but not bumped the spec. Please recheck the following links
Spec URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/hl-pagul-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/hl-pagul-fonts-1.0-1.fc15.s...
koji scratch-build-> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3029204
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
--- Comment #3 from Parag pnemade@redhat.com 2011-04-27 05:11:31 EDT --- %_font_pkg macro is expanded by rpm which contains %files section. See file /etc/rpm/macros.fonts on your system.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mariobl@freenet.de Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-04-27 05:51:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
%_font_pkg macro is expanded by rpm which contains %files section. See file /etc/rpm/macros.fonts on your system.
OK, thanks for the hint. I didn't know how this works in font packages.
$ rpmlint -v * hl-pagul-fonts.src: I: checking hl-pagul-fonts.src: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/pagul/ (timeout 10 seconds) hl-pagul-fonts.src: I: checking-url http://download.sourceforge.net/project/pagul/Pagul_v1.0.zip (timeout 10 seconds) hl-pagul-fonts.noarch: I: checking hl-pagul-fonts.noarch: I: checking-url http://sourceforge.net/projects/pagul/ (timeout 10 seconds) hl-pagul-fonts.spec: I: checking-url http://download.sourceforge.net/project/pagul/Pagul_v1.0.zip (timeout 10 seconds) 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK, no issues.
--------------------------------- key:
[+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work ---------------------------------
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. GPLv3+ with exceptions
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Would be nice to mention which exception is used here (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException) [+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. $ md5sum * e37f7bf8c70dce476bbddac5dd4da583 Pagul_v1.0.zip e37f7bf8c70dce476bbddac5dd4da583 Pagul_v1.0.zip.packaged
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. - Succesful Koji build available. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, ... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [.] MUST: If a package installs files below %{_datadir}/icons, the icon cache must be updated. [.] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ... [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Packages must not provide RPM dependency information when that information is not global in nature, or are otherwise handled. [.] MUST: When filtering automatically generated RPM dependency information, the filtering system implemented by Fedora must be used. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application. [.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), ... [.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives. [.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file [.] MUST: .desktop files must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream... [+] SHOULD: Timestamps of files should be preserved. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See Koji build above (which uses mock anyway) [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. I assume the packager has tested it. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [.] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [.] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg. [.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ... [.] SHOULD: Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
--------------------------------------
PACKAGE APPROVED
--------------------------------------
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
--- Comment #5 from Parag pnemade@redhat.com 2011-04-27 06:10:56 EDT --- Thanks for the review. But I just found actually ttf created by sfd contains no foundry/vendor name and pagul font is open source version of sourashtra font which is for commercial use and using HL as foundry.
I will use this package name as pagul-fonts only.
See more info at http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2011/04/font-for-sourashtra-script.html
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
Parag pnemade@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: pagul-fonts |hl-pagul-fonts - Font for |- Font for Saurashtra |Saurashtra script |script
--- Comment #6 from Parag pnemade@redhat.com 2011-04-27 06:34:28 EDT --- Updated package Spec URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/pagul-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://paragn.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/pagul-fonts-1.0-2.fc15.src....
koji scratch-build-> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3029371
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
--- Comment #7 from Mario Blättermann mariobl@freenet.de 2011-04-27 09:34:06 EDT --- OK, your package is approved anyway.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
Parag pnemade@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from Parag pnemade@redhat.com 2011-04-29 05:06:45 EDT --- Thanks for the review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pagul-fonts Short Description: Font for Saurashtra script Owners: pnemade Branches: f15 InitialCC: i18n-team fonts-sig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
--- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-04-30 14:13:03 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-03 00:40:24 EDT --- pagul-fonts-1.0-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pagul-fonts-1.0-2.fc15
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-05 00:41:54 EDT --- pagul-fonts-1.0-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-06-03 22:58:48 EDT --- pagul-fonts-1.0-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=699587
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |pagul-fonts-1.0-2.fc15 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2011-06-03 22:58:56
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla