[Bug 652803] Review Request: arkandis-gillius-fonts - Gillius ADF sans-serif typeface family

[bugzilla at 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=652803

--- Comment #11 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> 2010-11-15 13:47:44 EST ---
As a nitpick point, since the %{_font_pkg} macro only contains a %files section
and %post and %postun sections, I would place the %{_font_pkg} macros where the
%post, %postun and %files sections normally are, i.e. at the end. At least to
me it is a bit confusing that they are in the middle of everything.

Personally, I would also just cut'n'paste the common description to wherever
it's needed, I don't think overusing macros is a good idea.

rpmlint reports
adf-gillius-2-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
adf-gillius-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation
adf-gillius-fonts.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %_font_pkg
adf-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
adf-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
adf-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
adf-gillius-fonts.src: W: no-%clean-section
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

Actually, here you see that one of the %{_font_pkg} macros has been picked up
in the description.

**

MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. ~OK

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
- The font guidelines adhere to a different policy than normal Fedora
guidelines. [I wonder why that exception isn't in the Naming Guidelines as for
other types of packages?]

MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines. OK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
4939391ae6189a93d9d7d7f90a539f06  Gillius-Collection.zip
4939391ae6189a93d9d7d7f90a539f06  ../SOURCES/Gillius-Collection.zip

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. N/A

MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
- Setting the permissions explicitly is a bit unconventional, normally we just
use default permissions, that is (-,root,root) or (-,root,root,-).

MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK


***

To me the package looks good.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.