https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369671 --- Comment #7 from Benson Muite <benson_muite@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/atkinson-hyperlegible- next-fonts-common/DESCRIPTION.en_us.html See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files ===== 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. [ ]: 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 %license. [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", "SIL Open Font License 1.1", "*No copyright* SIL Open Font License 1.1". 50 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/atkinson- hyperlegible-next-fonts/2369671-atkinson-hyperlegible-next- fonts/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: 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. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 903 bytes in 1 files. [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). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== 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: [!]: Run fc-query on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find fc-query command, install fontconfig package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined Rpmlint ------- Checking: atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts-2.100-1.fc43.noarch.rpm atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts-common-2.100-1.fc43.noarch.rpm atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts-2.100-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpbfqw797v')] checks: 32, packages: 3 atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('kerning', '%description -l en_US kerning -> keening, kenning, yearning') atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts.src: E: spelling-error ('kerning', '%description -l en_US kerning -> keening, kenning, yearning') atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts-common.noarch: E: spelling-error ('kerning', '%description -l en_US kerning -> keening, kenning, yearning') atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts.spec:63: W: setup-not-quiet atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts-common.noarch: E: description-line-too-long This package consists of files used by other atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts packages. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 2 warnings, 12 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.5 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts-common.noarch: E: spelling-error ('kerning', '%description -l en_US kerning -> keening, kenning, yearning') atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts.noarch: E: spelling-error ('kerning', '%description -l en_US kerning -> keening, kenning, yearning') atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts-common.noarch: E: description-line-too-long This package consists of files used by other atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts packages. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/googlefonts/atkinson-hyperlegible-next/archive/7925f50.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4b455dcf5ce2d6261df7caf6f4d035c893b446f14269106a07bc03c204368626 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4b455dcf5ce2d6261df7caf6f4d035c893b446f14269106a07bc03c204368626 Requires -------- atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts-common config(atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts) atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fontpackages-filesystem Provides -------- atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts: atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts config(atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts) font(atkinsonhyperlegiblenext) font(atkinsonhyperlegiblenextextrabold) font(atkinsonhyperlegiblenextextralight) font(atkinsonhyperlegiblenextlight) font(atkinsonhyperlegiblenextmedium) font(atkinsonhyperlegiblenextsemibold) atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts-common: atkinson-hyperlegible-next-fonts-common Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2369671 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, fonts Disabled plugins: PHP, Python, R, Java, C/C++, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Thanks for bringing this to Fedora, sorry for delay in reviewing. b) The common package contains only one file? Why not just include it in the main package? c) License file is not installed. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/#_spec_template_documentation Can the %fontinstall and %fontbuild macros be used? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2369671 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202369671%23c7 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
