Re: fedora-review: fonts plugin

Parag N(पराग़) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> · Wed, 4 Sep 2013 09:37:49 +0530

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    On 2013-09-03 10:59, Parag N(पराग़)
      wrote:

      Hi,

            On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:37 PM,
              Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx>
              wrote:

                      On 2013-09-03 06:38, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:

                        Hi,

                            On Mon, Sep 2, 2013
                              at 8:55 PM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx>
                              wrote:

                              I
                                have added a provisionary fonts plugin
                                to fedora-review. It's available in the
                                devel version, see [1].

                                f-r is now early in the 0.5.1 cycle.  To
                                be successful, this plugin needs to be
                                tested by people understanding fonts.
                                I'm certainly no such a person, so I
                                would very much appreciate any kind of
                                feedback on this plugin. In this list,
                                in the upstream trac instance[2] or
                                bugzilla; anything is fine. The upstream
                                bugtracker is preferred, though.

                              Can you generate test tarball that I
                                can just use and install to test this
                                new change?

                              Regards,

                                Parag 

                  There's instructions on how to use the development
                  version using git  in [1]. This is the simplest and
                  most used option IMHO.

                  Also, you can find tarballs and rpms at [2].  Note 
                  that the rpm's version number are not upgradeable, new
                  rpms sometimes have 'older' version than the previous
                  so you must use rpm -U --force  or similar to use
                  them. Tarballs are run the same way as the git
                  snapshots using ./try-fedora-review, see [1].

             Thanks for the rpms.

              1) I generally test fedora-review on existing packages as
              e.g.

              $ fedora-review -rn trabajo-fonts-2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm -m
              fedora-rawhide-x86_64

            I really liked this 5.x.x releases
              which got more verbose and showing Active plugins. I can
              see for above command fonts plugin is used. But I am not
              sure why I got warning in following log.

              INFO: Downloading (Source0): http://openfontlibrary.org/assets/downloads/trabajo/d8bc760f033341f410d8b1ee698609fb/trabajo.zip

              INFO: Using local file trabajo-fonts-fontconfig.conf as
              Source1

              WARNING: Package trabajo-fonts-2.0-1.fc19 not built

              INFO: Running checks and generating report

              INFO: Results and/or logs in:
              /home/parag/gitvcs/trabajo-fonts/master/trabajo-fonts/results

              INFO: Build completed

            Tested with other font package and
              got following warning for that package

              WARNING: Package lohit-devanagari-fonts-2.5.3-2.fc19 not
              built

              2) I think its good to have results from repo-font-audit
              to be stored in fonts directory and not in parent
              directory of fedora-review command output.

    You mean s single directory like repo-font-audit and the results in
    there?  

            3) both the packages I used
              fedora-review command, its review.txt showed

              Rpmlint (installed packages)

              ----------------------------

              Cannot parse rpmlint output:

              Requires

              --------

              Provides

              --------

            this looks failed to provide
              output. 

            4) for fedora-review of
              culmus-fonts-0.130-3.fc20.src.rpm, I got following

              ERROR: 'More than one %_font_pkg macro found' (logs in
              /home/parag/.cache/fedora-review.log)

            The macro %_font_pkg more than one
              is expected as this srpm creates many subpackages with
              each subpackage needs its own %_font_pkg macro.

            Regards,

            Parag

    Hi!

    This actually revealed some internal bugs in fedora-review. I have
    pushed some commits taking care of this, and now at least these two
    examples runs cleanly, (besides the subdir for repo-font-audit
    results). Would appreciate some further tests...

 Thanks for the update. I can see now above reported issues are fixed except generating a new directory for repo-font-audit command. I will request if there are some extra files getting generated using fedora-review as part of enabling some plugin then good to use that plugin name as a directory and store those generated files under that directory.

Regards,
Parag.

_______________________________________________
fonts mailing list
fonts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fonts
http://fonts.fedoraproject.org/