[RFA] Your baekmuk-bdf-fonts package did not pass QA

repo-font-audit nim at fedoraproject.org
Mon Nov 23 06:19:53 UTC 2009

Dear packager,

At 20091122T202901Z, your “baekmuk-bdf-fonts” package failed one or more of the tests
I was performing on the “fedora-devel” repository located at:

There are three different reasons that may cause this message:
1. your package is including one or more font files, but not packaging
   them properly;
2. your package is including one or more font files, and I've found
   issues in some of them;
3. your package is not shipping any font file, but the way it accesses
   fonts in other packages is not satisfying.

To stop receiving this message, you need to:
1. drop the font files or fix their packaging;
2. relay the fonts issues to the fonts upstream to get them revised;
3. work with the code upstream to improve the way it accesses font
   files (usually by making it use fontconfig through a higher-level
   text library such as pango, pango-cairo, harfbuzz, or QT)

You can self-check your packages at any time by:
1. installing createrepo and fontpackages-tools:
# yum install createrepo fontpackages-tools
2. putting your packages and any font package they depends on in a
   test directory
3. indexing this directory with createrepo:
$ createrepo path-to-test-directory
4. running repo-font-audit:
$ repo-font-audit test file://absolute-path-to-test-directory

A summary of the issues I detected is appended here. For your
convenience a more comprehensive analysis is also attached to this

Errors, warnings and suggestions:

P#     t2  t6  t7  t17
1      42  42  42  42
Total  42  42  42  42

P#  Maintainer  SRPM               RPM                EVR           Arch
1   cchance     baekmuk-bdf-fonts  baekmuk-bdf-fonts  0:2.2-8.fc12  noarch

Test explanation:

t2. Error: fonts in packages that do not declare font metadata

  ☛ Packager task
  Font-specific rpm metadata is required for automatic font installation to
  work. If you apply our font packaging templates, it will be generated at
  package creation time.
t6. Error: fonts fc-query can not parse

  ☛ Upstream task
  fc-query could not parse some font files in the package. The files may be
  malformed and in need of fixing, or fc-query has a bug.
  Any font file rejected by fc-query will be useless in fontconfig and most
  applications. If it can not be fixed drop it
  Please relay the problem to the appropriate upstream to get it fixed.
t7. Error: fonts not identified as such by libmagic

  ☛ Upstream task
  libmagic could not identify some files with font-like extensions in the
  package. The files may be malformed and in need of fixing, or they use a
  font extension when they should not, or libmagic has a bug.
  Please relay the problem to the appropriate upstream to get it fixed.
t17. Warning: fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks

  ☛ Font upstream task
  Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
  the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as
  strange behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug).
  For that reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and
  get them fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
  You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
  Please relay the problem report to the font upstream.
  ¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html

Please take the appropriate measures to fix the “baekmuk-bdf-fonts” package.
I will warn you again if it is still necessary next time I am ran.

This report was generated by the repo-font-audit command from:

Please post questions, suggestions, patches or bug reports to:
(subscription required)

Your friendly QA robot,

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: baekmuk-bdf-fonts.tar.xz
Type: application/x-xz-compressed-tar
Size: 25272 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fonts-bugs/attachments/20091123/aa2a2300/attachment.bin 

More information about the fonts-bugs mailing list