[Bug 1181726] Merge Review Request: dejavu-fonts - DejaVu fonts

Thu Feb 26 06:38:51 UTC 2015

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181726

Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #15 from Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> ---
Here is a similar review of dejavu-fonts-2.33-5.el5:

The package is basically identical to dejavu-fonts-2.33-4.el5

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=355715 
(ie the last build before it got removed from epel5.)

Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== 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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in 1181726-dejavu-fonts/licensecheck.txt
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.

Ditto above - comments should be added.

[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 7 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: EPEL5: Package does run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Explicit BuildRoot: tag as required by EPEL5 present.
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

fonts:
[x]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package.
     Note: repo-font-audit analyze results in /home/petersen/pkgreview/1181726
     -dejavu-fonts/fonts directory.
[x]: Run ttname on all fonts in package.
     Note: ttname analyze results in fonts/ttname.log.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: dejavu-fonts-common-2.33-5.fc21.noarch.rpm
          dejavu-fonts-2.33-5.fc21.src.rpm
dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-compat
dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-doc
dejavu-fonts-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided dejavu-fonts-lgc-compat
dejavu-fonts.src:300: W: non-break-space line 300, char 19
dejavu-fonts.src:304: W: non-break-space line 304, char 21
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output: (fedora-review error)

[fedora-review listing dejavu-fonts-common for me:]
Requires
--------
dejavu-fonts-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    fontpackages-filesystem

Provides
--------
dejavu-fonts-common:
    dejavu-fonts-common

Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/dejavu/dejavu-fonts-2.33.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
bc60143be7adf8868d9233ae0f0a0c1b38b3bdd23529859dfdca7b3374cba082
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
bc60143be7adf8868d9233ae0f0a0c1b38b3bdd23529859dfdca7b3374cba082

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1181726 -D EPEL5
Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, BATCH, DISTTAG

Package is APPROVED (merge review and EPEL5 re-review)
provided the multi-license comments are added.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sHcNueEKw9&a=cc_unsubscribe