Re: fedora-review: fonts plugin

Parag N(पराग़) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> · Wed, 4 Sep 2013 13:29:54 +0530

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    On 2013-09-04 06:07, Parag N(पराग़)
      wrote:

      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.

    Yes, a directory named after the plugin (or at least prefixed with
    the plugin name) is the proper solution. Fixed in new commit. 

Thanks, I can see fonts directory now.

    Thanks for all help, looking forward to hear about more exotic
    failures over time :) BTW, the nightly rpms should now have a clean
    upgrade path.

Yes I saw that and I need to bump the release tag to get it updated locally but I see this problem has gone now with updated nightly srpm.

Regards,
Parag.

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