[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 556308] Review Request: paratype-pt-sans-fonts - A pan-Cyrillic typeface

[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=556308

Mathieu Bridon <bochecha at fedoraproject.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |bochecha at fedoraproject.org
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #5 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha at fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-13 09:40:54 EST ---
First, one cosmetic nitpick:
$ rpm -qivp SRPMS/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112-1.fc12.src.rpm 
[snip]
This package includes the four basic styles and two narrows styles for \
economic setting.

Could you make the backslash go away?

Also, you define the « archivename » macro at the beginning of the spec but
never actually use it. Can you remove it? (or use it?)

Now, to the actual review.

+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing

MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/paratype-pt-sans-*
paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license PTFL
paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font
License_eng.txt
paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-caption-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font
License_eng.txt
paratype-pt-sans-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license PTFL
paratype-pt-sans-fonts.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font License_eng.txt
paratype-pt-sans-fonts.noarch: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/paratype-pt-sans-fonts-20100112/PT Free Font License_eng.txt
paratype-pt-sans-fonts.src: W: macro-in-%description %_font_pkg
paratype-pt-sans-fonts.src: W: invalid-license PTFL
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
  => license is listed in the Fedora good licenses, so those 3 warnings can
safely be ignored
    => I just opened #564585 to request that it is accepted by rpmlint
  => the 2 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding can safely be ignored I'd say
(license text probably written under Windows)
  => the 2 file-not-utf8 can be ignored as well (same as above)
  => the macro-in-%description can be ignored as the macro is properly expanded
at SRPM-build time, even with --nodeps

IMHO, it would be nice to run iconv and dos2unix to remove the warnings, but
those are not really important.

[+] 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 be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
  => PTFL

[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: 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 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,
as provided in the spec URL.
  => First one is the one I got from the URL in the spec file, second one is
from the SRPM.
$ sha1sum PTSans.zip 
d812b275f2b13e59a69671785b53a4eb5805c561  PTSans.zip
$ sha1sum SOURCES/PTSans.zip 
f72ab3c42157ef81f7398b641213851f77e2deec  SOURCES/PTSans.zip

[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun.
  => not applicable

[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
  => not applicable

[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.

This package is not approved as the source archives don't match.

-- 
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.