Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: paktype-nashk-basic-fonts - Fonts for Arabic from PakType
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=565830
Summary: Review Request: paktype-nashk-basic-fonts - Fonts for Arabic from PakType Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nkumar@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/paktype-nashk-basic-fonts.spec SRPM URL: http://pravins.fedorapeople.org/paktype-nashk-basic-fonts-3.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Hi! I have just finished packaging paktype-nashk-basic-fonts, and I would appreciate a review so that I can get into fedora (FE-NEEDSPONSOR). Some of the informal reviews that I have done till now: 1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=559936 2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561270 3. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561271 4. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561289 5. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561225
I have packaged one package, which may take some time to get reviewed properly: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563444
Koji Scratch Build for paktype-nashk-basic-fonts: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1990670
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=565830
Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net | |, nkumar@redhat.com Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
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=565830
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal) Flag| |needinfo?(nkumar@redhat.com | |)
--- Comment #1 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2010-02-22 10:23:49 EST --- This could probably be a nice package, unfortunately it does not pass legal checks
The fonts are derived from GPL sources and DejaVu/Vera. GPL and Vera License do not mix (the Vera license restricts the font naming, and forbids standalone selling, and the GPL forbids additional restrictions)
Therefore, those fonts can not be shipped in Fedora, unless Bitstream agrees to relicence Vera under a GPL variant, or KACST/URW agree to relicence under the Vera license (or they all agree to relicence under some other license). Short term the best solution for upstream is to remove the vera bits from the mix.
This is all very sad, and the reason why we ask new font projects to release under GPL + FE or OFL, and stop inventing new licenses (granted, OFL has been largely inspired by the Vera license, so Vera was a huge leap forward, even though it can not mix with GPL fonts)
I'll be happy to re-review this package is the licensing problems are lifted, or any other font package you may wish to submit. It looks like you invested a lot of work in this package. Unfortunately for fonts checking legal is a good idea before looking at technical issues :(
Please close this bug if you think the legal issues can not be lifted. NEEDINFO in the meanwhile.
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=565830
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |nkumar@redhat.com
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=565830
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |panemade@gmail.com Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
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=565830
Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(nkumar@redhat.com | |) |
--- Comment #2 from Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com 2010-03-02 09:19:29 EST --- Upstream has modified the License, please consider it for review:
Spec URL: http://nkumar.fedorapeople.org/paktype-nashk-basic-fonts/paktype-nashk-basic...
SRPM URL: http://nkumar.fedorapeople.org/paktype-nashk-basic-fonts/paktype-nashk-basic...
Koji Scratch Builds: dist-f12: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2024799 dist-f13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2024813
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=565830
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nkumar@redhat.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org
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=565830
Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot@l | |aposte.net)
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=565830
--- Comment #3 from Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com 2010-03-05 01:57:23 EST --- updated Spec file and SRPM.
Koji Scratch Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2032277
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=565830
--- Comment #4 from Pravin Satpute psatpute@redhat.com 2010-03-05 03:51:26 EST --- just some comments on spec file
1) use complete link wget link for source0, no need to create macro for only line 2) dont repeat
ln -s %{_fontconfig_templatedir}/%{fontconf}-sa.conf \ %{buildroot}%{_fontconfig_confdir}/%{fontconf}-sa.conf
use for loop for it as per /etc/rpmdevtools/spectemplate-fonts-multi.spec 3)
for txt in License.txt; do fold -s $txt > $txt.new sed -i 's/\r//' $txt.new touch -r $txt $txt.new mv $txt.new $txt done
no need of this only %{__sed} -i 's/\r//' License.txt working fine
4) # get rid of the white space (' ')
for PakType Naskh Basic Comparison Chart.pdf PakType\ Naskh\ Basic\ Comparison\ Chart.htm
may be add _ in place of 'space'
5) i think no need to change name of upstream file, just add _ instead of "space" PakType\ Naskh\ Basic\ Comparison\ Chart.htm
6) from Readme sed remove sed -i 's/\x95//g' $txt.new as it doesnt have x95 character
7)no need of $cd .. much i think its good to do things from $pwd
8) add .conf file for PakTypeNaskhBasic.ttf as well
follow /usr/share/fontconfig/templates/basic-font-template.conf
9) i think %_font_pkg PakTypeNaskhBasic.ttf, should move just before its package.
10) remove unnecessary space from sindhi.conf <string>PakType Nashk Basic Sindhi </string>
11) please add %doc under common files, presently no rpm is getting generated.
%files common %defattr(-,root,root,-) %doc .... %dir %{fontdir} ...
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=565830
--- Comment #5 from Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com 2010-03-05 04:28:46 EST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
Updated new Spec and SRPM at:
Spec URL: http://nkumar.fedorapeople.org/paktype-nashk-basic-fonts-3.0-3/paktype-nashk...
SRPM URL: http://nkumar.fedorapeople.org/paktype-nashk-basic-fonts-3.0-3/paktype-nashk...
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2032492
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=565830
--- Comment #6 from Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com 2010-03-05 04:36:55 EST --- Please ignore above scratch build Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2032496
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=565830
--- Comment #7 from Pravin Satpute psatpute@redhat.com 2010-03-08 05:08:38 EST --- - Remove BuildRequires: fontforge >= 20080429, as we are not generating ttf from .sfd
- also remove Requires: fontpackages-filesystem from base package, since common package is already pulling that
- as we are using common desc. for all packages it should be little bit more generic or please append little bit more in description of each package
- Remove rmdir NaskhBasic-3.0; rm -r Ready\ to\ use\ fonts/ rm -r License\ files/ rm -r NaskhBasic-3.0/Project\ files/ no need to do this
- mv PakType\ Naskh\ Basic\ License.txt License.txt no need to rename this file, keep original name just add "_" instead of " "
- .conf file in .ttf file, style is written as Decorative, please confirm it, what we suppose to write in that case in .conf 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=565830
Pravin Satpute psatpute@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |psatpute@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
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=565830
Pravin Satpute psatpute@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot@l | |aposte.net) |
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=565830
--- Comment #8 from Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com 2010-03-09 05:12:20 EST --- (In reply to comment #7)
- .conf file
in .ttf file, style is written as Decorative, please confirm it, what we suppose to write in that case in .conf file
I do not much about this. For the time being it is written as sans-serif.
Updated Spec & SRPM:
SPEC: http://nkumar.fedorapeople.org/paktype-nashk-basic-fonts/paktype-nashk-basic...
SRPM: http://nkumar.fedorapeople.org/paktype-nashk-basic-fonts/paktype-nashk-basic...
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2040498
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=565830
Pravin Satpute psatpute@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |paktype-nashk-basic-fonts - |paktype-naskh-basic-fonts - |Fonts for Arabic from |Fonts for Arabic from |PakType |PakType
--- Comment #9 from Pravin Satpute psatpute@redhat.com 2010-03-11 23:55:47 EST --- - package name should be paktype-naskh-fonts not nashk
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=565830
--- Comment #10 from Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com 2010-03-12 01:05:59 EST --- (In reply to comment #9)
- package name should be paktype-naskh-fonts not nashk
Updated Spec & SRPM:
SPEC: http://nkumar.fedorapeople.org/paktype-naskh-basic-fonts/paktype-naskh-basic...
SRPM: http://nkumar.fedorapeople.org/paktype-naskh-basic-fonts/paktype-naskh-basic...
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2048177
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=565830
--- Comment #11 from Pravin Satpute psatpute@redhat.com 2010-03-12 03:07:08 EST --- - write appropriate summary in each subpackage This is wrong --> Summary: Tehreer Fonts for Arabic from PakType - improve common_desc or append something in each subpackage's description
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=565830
--- Comment #12 from Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com 2010-03-12 05:33:17 EST --- (In reply to comment #11)
- write appropriate summary in each subpackage
This is wrong --> Summary: Tehreer Fonts for Arabic from PakType
- improve common_desc or append something in each subpackage's description
Updated Spec & SRPM:
SPEC: http://nkumar.fedorapeople.org/paktype-naskh-basic-fonts/paktype-naskh-basic...
SRPM: http://nkumar.fedorapeople.org/paktype-naskh-basic-fonts/paktype-naskh-basic...
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2048458
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=565830
Pravin Satpute psatpute@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|psatpute@redhat.com |nkumar@redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from Pravin Satpute psatpute@redhat.com 2010-03-12 05:50:16 EST --- + package builds in mock (rawhide i686). koji Build => http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2048458 + rpmlint is silent for SRPM and for RPM. + source files match upstream url 407b095967ceecc4a342355295dd8c83 NaskhBasic-3.0.tar.gz + package meets naming and packaging guidelines. + specfile is properly named, is cleanly written + Spec file is written in American English. + Spec file is legible. + dist tag is present. + build root is correct. + license is open source-compatible. combination of "GPLv2 with Font Exceptions" and "GPLVv2+ with Font Exceptions" so "GPLv2 with Font Exceptions" is proper license + License text is included in package. + %doc is present. + BuildRequires are proper. + %clean is present. + package installed properly. + Macro use appears rather consistent. + Package contains code, not content. + no headers or static libraries. + no .pc file present. + no -devel subpackage + no .la files. + no translations are available + Does owns the directories it creates. + fonts scriptlets present. + no duplicates in %files. + file permissions are appropriate. + Not a GUI application
install -m 0644 -p PakTypeNaskhBasicFarsi.ttf PakTypeNaskhBasic.ttf PakTypeNaskhBasicSA.ttf PakTypeNaskhBasicUrdu.ttf PakTypeNaskhBasicSindhi.ttf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_fontdir}, do check is *.ttf works for it before import.
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=565830
Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #14 from Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com 2010-03-12 08:06:06 EST --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: paktype-naskh-basic-fonts Short Description: Fonts for Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Sindhi from PakType Owners: nkumar Branches: F-12 F-13 InitialCC: 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=565830
--- Comment #15 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2010-03-15 17:41:35 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
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=565830
Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG
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=565830
Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NOTABUG |NEXTRELEASE
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=565830
--- Comment #16 from Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com 2010-04-09 06:39:23 EDT --- Thanks to Tom "spot" Callaway, Pravin Satpute & Nicolas Mailhot. You all have been great and supportive...:)
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=565830
--- Comment #17 from Naveen Kumar nkumar@redhat.com 2010-04-09 06:40:06 EDT --- Tom "spot" Callaway! Thanks for the CVS.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org